Some Considerations, as previously necessary to the Matter in hand, to be observed.

IT hath been my thoughts, that as no one thing will prove a more surprizing Cheat, than what is most like Truth, and yet, indeed, is not Truth; So, no Error is more likely to prove successfully de­structive, than a refined one; yea, always the more refined, the more exitiall.

Now the way and measure that some persons have revived in their Un­dertakings of late, for the carrying on of Reformation, hath been by a re­ceding from (in part especially, as far as occasion, and a self-interesting con­veniency might serve turn) what in its outward order, and discipline, seem­ed to be most opposite unto, and destructive of the same, and therein to take up their rest; not duly regarding those fundamental (and as such more vitally essential) parts thereof, whereon the same must, if ever it infallibly, as to its Nature, and immutably as to its Duration, be built and established; or it will issue in the same ruinous overthrow, and disappointment with that House, whose superstructure, did not in the least, difference it from that which stood, but its Foundation: And this appears from that Sophistry, that runs, as in a continued and interlarding line, through some Polemically-Eirenick Treatises insensibly opening thereby a; Back-door unto Rome, to swallow up our Reformation, emptying Tyber into Thames, by leading poor silly wretches into the Council of Trent, to seek after their Justification before God, and that both as to the Causes, Nature, Matter, Effects and Applicati­on thereof.

Wherefore, we shall in brief consider, the different Foundations, on which Persons, otherwise jointly bent against the General Apostacy in the Bulk, or open and more loose appearance thereof, did proceed in the work of Reformation; and wherein they were not a little, but some exceedingly divided amongst themselves, and that in no less an Article, than what is either in whole, or in part falsly so; or but pretendly, and falsely fundamental; amongst which there were such as thought it ab­solutely necessary to Build the Reformation, upon that Solid, Square, Compleat and Rocky Principle, included in the whole of Christ's O [...]edience, both [Page 2] to the Preceptive, and Sanction-part of the Law, as being the undoubted matter wherein, and not only for which, the Elect of God must stand [if ever] Justified before him; The Law not only requiring a satisfaction for the breach of it, and that in a penalty Commensurately answering the ut­most demands of an infinite Justice, In dying, thou shalt dye; but also such an actual living Obedience unto the preceptive part of it, as must give such a Juridical Title unto Life and Glory; As, do this and live, doth import. Hence it is, that Christ is said to be made under the Law, in an unlimitted sense, Gal. 4. 4. But for what? To redeem them that were under the Law, v. 5. But how? Was it only as to the Sanction-part thereof? which mainly respects an obnoxiousness to its Curse? No surely. This was not the design of the Galatians, for Purgatory was not then in fashion. But they desired to be un­der the Law as to the obedience its preceptive part required, either in whole, or in part, for their Righteousness unto Justification, v. 21. This Christ came to Redeem them from, v. 5. Therefore the Messiah is said to be anointed, or set apart, by all suitable qualifications, both in his Person and Office, to bring in Everlasting Righteousness, as well as finish Transgressions, each being inseparable, yet absolutely distinct parts of his suretiship, Dan. 9. 24. com­pare Matth. 20. 28. Chap. 26. 28. with Chap. 3 15. and Cap. 5. 17. This Dr. Owen well observes (whom some do very briskly quote, but it is as the Devil did that Scripture in his Tempting of our Lord, Mat. 4. 6. partially, and for different ends, from what it was designed.) That, ‘as we plead, that the Death of Christ is imputed unto us for our Righteousness. For by the Imputation of the Sufferings of Christ, our sins are remitted, or pardoned, and we are delivered from the Curse of the Law, which he underwent. But we are not thence esteemed just or righteous, which we cannot be, without respect unto the fulfilling of the commands of the Law, or the obedience by it required. Treatise of Justification, page 383, &c.’

And let me add, that though no one can be saved by the Law, as it is a Covenant, Rom. 8. 3. Yet none shall enter into Life, as an Inheritance, but by the Righteousness of the same; and that either in the right of his own Personal Obedience, or that of another, Rom. 8. 4. chap. 10. 4. chap. 5. 19. This seems to me to be included in our Saviour's Answer unto the Lawyer, Luke 10. 25. who would know of him, how he might obtain Eternal Life, and that as an Inheritance: The Answer, as becoming Divine Wisdom it self, is exceeding pertinent, vers. 26. What is written in the Law? How readest thou (which it is unto all the Elect) thou must lay thy claim there­unto, and fix thy Title upon that Righteousness, which the Law includes in it, even the whole of it, and that either in thine own, or the Person of another. Hence it is, that Believers are said to be Heirs, and joynt-heirs with Christ, Rom. 8. 17. Of this sort of Reformers were Luther, Calvin, &c. and several more Modern ones, whose Names will be had in everlast­ing Remembrance.

2. There were such as Circumscribed the righteousness of the Elect, as to the [Page 3] matter of their Justification before God with in the compass of Christs passive obedience only, as some usually phrase it, or his sufferings unto death: These, though they were not as extensive, as could be wished, in their lay­ing and maintaining the main and fundamental Article, whereon the refor­mation was built and carried on, yet they owned it in the reality of the same, as assiigning unto it it's main and more proper intendment and use (next to the satisfaction of an infinite offended Justice) that what he did and suffered in his death, he did it not only as a distinct meditorial act, fitting him to become a Saviour, but in the room and stead of all the Elect, so that the same is imput­ed to them, as if they themselves had done it: Of this number are Piscator, and several others in our dayes. The which Dr. Jacomb doth not a little bemoan. In his Preface to his Sermons on the 8th to the Romans, See Sect. 14. ‘So long as the strife lay between an Israelite and an Egyptian the matter was not very sad; but when the Israelites strove one against the other, then it was sad indeed: So here; so long as the contention was 'twixt Romanists and Socinians on one hand, and Protestants on the other, 'twas well enough; but when Protestants divide and differ amongst themselves, that's a matter of great sadness. In the body of this work I have had occasion only to contend with the former, and there I had nothing but Comfort; but in the end I was necessitated to take notice of and to interest my self in a differ­ence between the latter (concerning the imputation of Christ's Active obe­dience, which some are for and some against,) and that afflicted me more than all that went before.’ But.

3. There were such who as an Egyptian excrescency upon this going out of the house of bondage by Reformation, seemed to Joyn in the work and did so. In a more general separation from Antichrist, at least as to it's exter­nal abominations, who yet did retain that which indeed is its main prop and support; without a thorow removal of which this Beast will stand in whatever societies this its root, footing and principle may be found: And the Abetters thereof, however they may escape him in his mark and name, yet sooner or later will be reckoned by the Spirit of the Lord amongst the number of the same. Rev. 13. 17. And such were those, who notwithstand­ing their owning of Christ his righteousness and merits, yet assigned unto him and them no other a room or place in the Justification of a sinner before God, than as the same made way for the presenting of such before him in an inherent righteousness as the matter thereof: Or, to be more express, That the merits and righteousness of Christ the Second Person in the Trinity, as to and for which he was and is Mediator, did procure such an act or cove­nant of grace from God the Father the first Person, that sinners should be Justified in by and materially for the righteousness of the third Person, which is no more, than the fruit of the Spirit in his work of Regeneration. There are too many books extant expressive of the truth of this Assertion: And that both of more ancient and modern Authors than can be mo­destly denied.

Now into which of this number or sorts of Reformers, Our present [Page 4] great Truth-stator and vindicator will be cast, the sequel of our present disqui­sition (I hope) may in some measure inform us: And notwithstanding the Friendly colours he hangs out, yet I fear that upon a thorow grappling with him we shall find him not only a Pirate in Common, but a professed ene­my in disguise and design, not far unlike the kindness the Dueller seemed to shew his Antagonist, bidding him beware of one behind him, who by his over-credulity turning to avoid a seeming danger, was run through by him.

In order to our further procedure herein we shall consider what Antinomi­anism indeed is, about which there are so many mere worldly discourses on foot this day. Therefore to omit it's literal signification, together with it's traditional acceptation, whereby it hath been managed rather to serve the interest of a party than really to inform the Judgment, we shall (God assisting) steer our course herein by the unerring Pole-star of the Scripture, by which alone it is that things as well as persons shall be finally determined. And herein I possitively assert, Antinomianism in the real root and sinfull nature thereof (I speak not of it's discovery in the fruits of the same) as it stands either directly or indirectly opposite unto the Covenant of Grace, and that either in doctrine or practice, is neither more nor less, than any per­verting or wresting of the Law of God either in whole or in part from it's proper use and designed end, for which it is fixed and placed in the hand of a Mediator, Gal. 3. 19. Hence it is that those with whom the Lord entred into covenant of old, he did it not only by sacrifice, Ps. 50. 5 but also by laying up the law not in part, but in both the Tables thereof, in the Ark, 1 Kings 8. 9. and herein lies the stated subjective fixedness and stability of the Covenant; though originated in the mutual compact betwixt the Father and the Son; That what Adam and all his posterity in him had broken and rendred useless as to any benefit they were to expect from the same, becomes in and by the sole management of Christ effectual unto life, peace and glory. Ps. 89. 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37. 2 Sam. 23. 5. Comp. Ps 84. 9. Rom. 7. 8, 9, 10. Comp. Ch. 8. 1, 2, 3, 4, As.

1. Doth the Law in it [...] Sanction-part require an Exemption from it's curse and consequently eternal Damnation by no less a satisfaction, than what compleatly answers all it's irritated demands. Why, all this is in Christ, Gal. 3. 10, 13. James 2. 10.

2. Doth the Law in its preceptive part look for an obedience as exactly cor­responding with it's inward nature and spirituality, as well as an outward compliance with it's literal injunctions and that as titular unto life and glory? Why all this is in Christ, Ps. 40. 8. Rom. 5. 18, 21. Ch. 10 4.

3. Doth the Law in its nature stand, or insist upon real true holiness in heart and faithfulness of life not only in opposition to the corruption and defilement of our nature barely as such, but to all Counterfeits of the same, and that as an indispensible inherent qualification for heaven and happi­ness? Why all this is in Christ. Heb. 12. 14. Comp. V. 2. Mat. 5. 48. Jo. 16. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Ch. 15. 3, 4, 5. Ch. 17. 8, 11, 12, 15, 17. Ch. 13. 8. Eph. 4. 22, 23, 24. Comp. V. 20, 21. Heb. 2. 11.

The whole of these three Heads is summarily comprized in that one Text, 1 Cor. 1. 30. Nay that very Text which seems to be most Expressive of Antinomianism, in the common acceptation of the word, turning the Grace of God into Laciviousness, speaks indeed but of the Fruit, Consequences and Effects of the same, it being originated in a denial or rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ, as to the forementioned ends, Jude v. 4. Jo 5. 40. Which is fully included in the Apostles Description of those who were guilty of the same, v. 19. such as separate themselves, and are Sensual: But how so? As having not the Spirit; now we know what the Office of the Spirit is, and who sends him, Ezek. 36. 27. Jo. 16. 7, 13. And it is also that he per­forms his said Office of writing the Law of God in the Heart, namely, by guiding into all Truth, and that as it is in Jesus, for he shall receive of his, and shew the same unto all his Disciples, Jo. 16. 13, 15. Eph. 4. 2. Thus Christ came to fulfil all Righteousness, and not to destroy any part of the Law, Matt. 5. 17. And hence he says, That without me you can do nothing, Jo. 15 5. There­fore the Apostle Jude's advice to the Saints unto whom he wrote in his days, that if ever they would avoid Antinomianism in the cursed Fruit thereof, viz. A turning the Grace of God into Laciviousness, they should diligently see that they prevent it in the root-cause of the same: But how! v. 20, 21. by be­ing much in the exercise of Faith and Prayer, and thereby they should not only be kept in a constant, clear prospect of the Love of God, and there­upon a well-grounded expectation of the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal Life hereafter, but also be built up here in Holiness. Hence it is that from a consideration of the Promises being all in Christ, 2 Cor. 1. 20. That the Apostle encourages the Corinthians to perfect holiness, c. 7. 1. But why, What are the Promises? Amongst the Divine unfathomable Ocean of them, this is one, and that no small one neither, Heb. 8. 10. I will put my Laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts. Of which Text our Au­thour hath blest us with such an Antipodaean Explication, that for my share I should be apt to think, that if he walks, as he talks, it is with his heels up­ward. Therefore Eliphaz directed Job to the alone expedient for his Cure of that Hypocrisy, which he and the rest of his friends falsly charged him with, Job 22. 22. q. d. If thou receive the Law from his mouth, if so consequently it will be laid up in thine Heart, and not till then, Isa. 26. 12.

Now whoever they be that are found either in Doctrine or Practice to Parcel the Law out of the hands of Christ, by assigning what they think meet of the same unto his management for them, or diverting any branch thereof out of its proper place and order, not according with, or agreeing to the rule of his Engagements therein, and that for the Elect, or those that were given unto him, will certainly, more, or less, be found under the real charge of Antinomianism; whilst in the mean time their word Exclamations, (to say of them no more, but the best we can) may pass as lively evidences of their Empty Skulls.

Hence the Apostle saith that it is by Faith (as excluding all other ways) we Establish the Law, Rom. 3. 21. And that as objectively resting upon and [Page 6] subjectively taking in by Application all the forementioned branches of the same, as each of them are laid up in, and transferred over to the Manage­ment of Christ. The two former safely respecting the Personal Matual re­lation (and that by Covenant betwixt the Father a [...] the Son) that Christ in his Publick Capacity, and the Elect stood in each to other, whereon a Commuta­tive Imputation of Sin and righteousness, is not only of Grace, but legally Found­ed; and he that truly receives not this by Faith, will be found an Antinomian in a superlative sense, as frustrating the main end and design of God in fix­ing and placing the Law in the hands of a Mediator, therefore the sin of Un­belief is doubly Damning; and where Christ is refused in the Preaching of the Gospel, it becomes the Savour of Death unto Death. The latter more mainly respecting our natures, and the fulness of the Elect, whereby they be­come holiness unto the Lord; And thus by Faith in Christ every true believer doth fully establish the Law; And herein lies the main, yea Antartique difference between the Covenant of grace and that of works; the latter requiring obedience in order to the acceptation of our persons, the former laying hold of our persons and loving them even when in their sins, and that manifested in the fruit thereof by a free Justification of their persons, before one dram of grace be wrought in their nature, which is not only fully as to the mat­ter, but regularly as to the order thereof, Expressed in Ezek. 16. 8, 9. Gal. 2. 20. And this I would fain know, whether the Love of God, as to it's original cause, the reality and substance of it's being, and the extensiveness of it's nature (I speak not of the discovery and effects thereof, either in Conversion or a translation into heaven) was not the same in him towards the person of Abra­ham even in his Id [...]atry, and the person of Paul even in the height of his persecution, as it is towards them in their persons now in glory. It is true there is no elect vessel that can be capable of either discerning, receiving, improving or a truly prizing of this Undeserved distinguishing love, without a nature wrought in them by regeneration) suitable to, that from whence it springs, yet the love of God either in it's cause, reality or exten­sive nature is not more set towards or fixed upon their persons barely as such, than it was before. There is no increasing or diminishing of it, as it had it's rise from eternity in God from the purpose of his will, so will it's duration be unto Eternity with him, by vertue of the same unchangea­ble purpose of his will towards them, though they discern it not. Jer. 31. 3. Isa. 55. 8. Jo. 13. 1. And this indeed is one main cause in a Collateral sense, next unto the grace and glory of God, which must primarily take place of the Eternal Covenant it self, Pro. 8. 30, 31, Heb. 2. 7,-13 John 3. 16.

From the whole of what hath been said, and a due Consideration of what our Author's treatise presents us withal, it will somewhat evidently and that shortly appear, That his sentiment and Judgment of Antinomianism in the root or originall cause, form and matter thereof, lyes in a gracious, real Commutation of sin and Righteousness betwixt Christ and the Elect founded in a Judicially-compacted Covenant, not only in the meritorious causes and effects, but material substance of the same, and that as commutatively [Page 7] transacted from each to other, not by infusion, but an infinitely solid, Juri­dical Compleat and [...]rreversible act of imputation. And truly where this is regard­ed, it is morally impossible for any, that faithfully adhere to the same in the full Covenant-stated scope thereof to escape our most inspective Authors prodigious charge. The reason is plain, for how can I suppose the transacti­on of my sin in the act thereof unto or upon another, so as that by a correla­tive commutation the righteousness of his obedience in the very actual mat­ter thereof becomes mine, without an infusion of vitious habits, whilst I my self expect, unto whatever grace in the merits and causes thereof I may assign the same, to be materially Justifyed before God, from or for an inherent righteousness wrought within me; for that Soul that looks not after a righteousness in the matter thereof for his Justification unto life wholly from without himself, cannot possibly look upon sin in the act thereof as trans­acted upon Christ without entertaining the aforesaid blasphemous suppo­sitions, and that because the reason runs parallel on both hands; for as that righteousness for which we are reckoned Just, is not by infusion; so neither are those sins in their most vitious defilements, for which Christ is reckoned a sinner infused into him, but both by imputation: now to impute in the sense of these inherent Justiciaries is fully stated by Mr. Baxter; In these following words—‘They talk much of Imputation, and neither know nor tell you what Imputation is; But take it mostly to be that which ever Dr. Crisp calleth a charging God with falshood; as if it were his reputing, reckoning, esteeming or supposing us to be what indeed we are not, or to have done or suffered what we did not, or to have what we have not; whereas Paul meaneth nothing (and [...] signifieth nothing) but a true account­ing us to be what we are, and to have done what we did, and to have what indeed we have; And to impute righteousness to us signifieth but truly to repute, account or Judge us righteous, Breviate of Justif. Proloug.’ And wherever this principle as such is rooted and fixed, such a persen (without grace prevent) is under invisible prejudices against this great fun­damental truth of Justification and also expos'd to betake himself to vari­ous prevarications, reproachful Calumnies, and false inconclusive suppo­sitions, and inferences in defence of the same, for it is impossible for such, if they will be true to their own principles in the Analogy of them, to con­ceive how sin should be transacted upon, or imputed indeed unto Christ in order to Justification, any otherwise than as they expect to receive a righte­ousness from him in order to the same, which is by infusion; Therefore the commutation spoken of must of consequence be unto them by Transfu­sion. And alwayes observe it, that where the one is taken away, the other of course will fall to the ground: For why must a transferring of sin in the act unto Christ more necessarily infer a transfusion of inherent vitious ha­bits into him, than a transferring of sin in the guilt and punishment of it only, must infer an habitual meritorious cause in him of sin in the said guilt and punishment thereof.

Hence it is, why this Doctrine will not, in the whole of it, go down with [Page 8] some People, and wherefore it is, that they amuse their Readers with such horrid consequences from the same; In that such an Imputation proper­ly directs the sinner to the Life-obedience of Christ, as the matter of his Righteousness, to stand in before God, the foundation of his Title to a Co­heirship with Christ, and the ground of his hopes for Glory hereafter: Whereas the Imputation of sin, in its guilt and punishment onely, though it make way for the transferring of the other, being never asunder, yet al­ways distinct, properly respects the Death of Christ; in the Imputation whereof unto us, we obtain a Negative Righteousness, which consists in a deli­verance from wrath, and an exemption from the righteous charge of an offended Justice; whereas it is impossible to inflict a Punishment justly on any one, that is not actually guilty of a Transgression of the Law, but by a legal Imputation; so it is as impossible to charge guilt justly upon any one, that hath not personally committed the Crime, unless it be by a legal Impu­tion: But of what, you will say? Of that which must necessarily presup­pose the guilt: For, can any one legally be prosecuted against as guilty, who is in his own Person actually an offender, without a matter of fact be laid to his charge? No one will suppose it: neither will any one imagine, that, through Grace, knows any thing of this great Mystery, that sin can be otherwise transacted upon Christ, than as the Cause is to the effect, i. e. it makes way for the transferring of guilt unto him, and both by a voluntary, ju­ridical, as well as gracious Imputation. Hence it is that sin and iniquity is said in Scripture, and not barely guilt, to be laid upon Christ, and that he was numbered amongst the Transgressors, and not expr [...]sly the guilty ones, that he put an end to sin, and finished transgression, and not meerly the guilt of the same, for, Sublatâ causâ tollitur effectus, and shew me that person, that in a Cove­nant Law sense is not charged with sin, and I'll undertake both for his guilt and punishment; All these surmises about sins being transacted upon Christ, is but the same, and to the same end, for which Bellarmine urged it of old against the Protestants, as to sin, in the guilt thereof. See Dr. Owen's Treatise of Justif. p. 282, 283. ‘It is fiercely objected against what we have As­serted, That if the Guilt of our Sins was imputed unto Christ, then was he Constituted a Sinner thereby; for it is the guilt of sin that makes any one truely a sinner. This is urged by Bellarmine, lib. 2. de Justificat. not for its own sake, but to disprove the Imputation of his Righteousness unto us, as as it is continued by others with the same design. For, saith he, if we be made Righteous and the Children of God, through the Imputation of the Righteeus­ness of Christ, then was he made a sinner, & quod horret animus cogitare, filius dia­boli; by the Imputation of the Guilt of our sins, or our Ʋnrighteousness unto him. And the same Objection is press [...]d by others, with instances of consequen­ces, &c. None ever dreamed of a Transfusion, or propagation of sin from us unto Christ, such as there was from Adam unto us. For Adam was a common Person unto us, we are not so to Christ; yea, he is so to us;’ (whereof take special notice) ‘and the Imputation of our sins unto him, is a [...]Act of Divine Dispensation, which no evil consequence can en­sue [Page] upon.’ Let the Reader but peruse what the Doctor says, in the same Treatise, in reference to one Mr. Hotchkiss, and he'll find as exungue leonem, the proceeding of some even in this our day, p. 50, 51, 52, 53. In the close whereof you have this saying,—‘Although I judge no Men, upon the Expressions that fall from them, in Polemical Writings, wherein on many occasions, they do affront their own experience, and contradict their own Prayers; yet, as to those who understand not that blessed Commutation of Sins and Righteousness, as to the substance of it, which I have plead­ed for, and the actings of our Faith, I shall be bold to say, That if the Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that perish.’

How far our Author may be concerned in what hath been said, is that which is now to be inquired into, and that, 1. In the method of his pro­ceedings against Dr. Crisp, as an Antinomian. 2. His own Concessions, with respect unto the Truth, and the Extent of them. 3. His Quotations of o­ther Authors, for what Ends, and with what Integrity. Lastly, his Expli­cation of those Scriptures, which mainly respect the matter in hand.

As to the first of these General Heads, viz.

I. THE Method of his Proceedings against Dr. Crisp as an Antinomi­an, which is managed two ways, besides his general neglect of the whole scope of the Doctors Works. But before I proceed herein, let us see how Luther, our Generally-acknowledged first Reformer, especially in the Doctrine of Justification, draws by a Parallel-Line of Judment, in the same Yoke with the Doctor, and that in his Treatise upon the Epistle to the Galatians, ch. 3. v. 13. fol. 135, 139 &c. onely remember, that when Lu­ther speaks of the whole World, or all Men, it's onely the Elect that we are to understand thereby. ‘Christ, sayes he, is innocent, as concerning his own Person, and therefore he ought not to have been hanged upon a Tree; but because, according to the Law of Moses, every Thie [...] and Malefactor ought to be hanged; therefore, Christ also, according to the Law, ought to be hanged, for he sustained the Person of a Sinner, and of a Thief, not of one, but of all Sinners and Thieves; for we are Sinners and Thieves, and therefore guilty of Death, and everlasting Damnation: But Christ took all our sins upon him, and for them died upon the Cross; therefore it be­hoved that he should become a Transgressor, Isa. 53 reckoned amongst them: And this (no doubt) all the Prophets did foresee in the Spirit, that Christ should become the greatest Transgressor, Murderer, Adulterer, Thief, Re­bel, and Blasphemer, that ever was or could be in all the World; for he being made a Sacrifice for the sins of the whole World, is not now an innocent Person, and without sins, is not now the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary; but a Sinner, which hath and carrieth the sin of Paul who was a Blasphemer, an Oppressor, and a Persecutor of Peter which denied Christ, of David, which was an Adulterer, a Murtherer, and caused [...]he Gen­tiles [Page 10] to blaspheme the Name of the Lord, and briefly which hath and bea­reth all the sins of all Men in his Body: Not that he himself committed them, but that he received them being committed or done by us, and laid them upon his own Body, that he might make satisfaction for them with his own Blood. Therefore this general sentence of Moses comprehendeth him also, (albeit in his own Person he was innocent,) because it found him a­mongst sinners and transgressors, Isa. 53. 5. Mat. 8. 17. like as the Magi­strate taketh him for a Thief, and Punisheth him, whom he findeth among other Thieves and Transgressors, though he never committed any thing worthy of Death. Now Christ was not only found amongst sinners, but of his own accord, and by the will of his Father, he would also be a Com­panion of sinners, taking upon him the flesh and blood of those which were sinners; Theives, and plunged in all kind of sin; when the Law therefore found him among Theives, it condemn'd him and killed him as a Thief▪ The Popish Sophisters do spoyl us of this knowledge of Christ, and most heavenly comfort, (namely that Christ was made a Curse, that he might deliver us from the Curse of the Law,) when they separate him from sin and sinners, and only set him out unto us as an example to be followed. By this means they make Christ not only unprofitable unto us, but also a Judge and a Tyrant, which is angry with our sins and condemneth sinners: But we must as well wrap Christ, and know him to be wrapr in our sins, in our Ma­lediction, in our Death, and in all our Evils, as he is wrapped in our Flesh and in our blood. But some Men will say, it is very absurd and slanderous, to call the Son of God a cursed sinner; I answer, if thou wilt deny him to be a sinner, and to be accursed, deny also that he was Crucifyed and Dyed, for it is no less absurd to say, that the Son of God (as our Faith confesseth and believeth,) was Crucified and suffered the pains of sin and death, than to say that he is a Sinner and accursed; but if it be not absurd to confess and believe that Christ was Crucified between two Thieves, then it is not absurd to say also, that he was accursed, and of all Sinners the greatest. These words of Paul are not spoken in vain, and that, 2 Cor. 5. 21. Jo. 1. 29. He verily is innocent, because he is the unspotted and undefiled Lamb of God; but because he beareth the sins of the World, his Innocence is burthened with the Sins and Guilt of the whole World, whatsoever I, Thou, and we all have done, or shall do hereafter, they are Christ's own Sins, are verily as if he himself, had done them. To be brief, our Sins must needs become Christ's own Sins, or else we shall perish for ever. This true knowledg of Christ, which Paul and the Prophets have most plainly delivered unto us, the wicked Sophysters have darkned and defaced. (Here is an Antinomian with a witness, for our Ambo-dexter Author to exercise his bifrontick skill, and Gigantick Manhood upon.) But further, saith he from Isa. 53. That God laid the Iniquity of us all upon him, we must not make these words less than they are, but leave them in their own proper significations, for God dally­eth not in the words of the Prophets, but speaketh earnestly and of great Love, viz. That Christ the Lamb of God, should bear the Sins of us all; but [Page 11] what is it to bear? The Sophisters Answer to be Punished; very well; but wherefore is Christ Punished? Is it not because, he hath sin, and beareth sin? Now that Christ hath sin, the Holy Ghost witnesseth in Psal. 40. My sins have taken such hold on me, that I am not able to look up, yea they are more in number than the heirs of my head. In this Psalm and certain others, the Holy Ghost speaketh in the Person of Christ, and in plain words witnesseth that he had sins; for this Testimony is not the Vo [...]ce of an Innocent, but of a suffering Christ, which took upon him to bear the Persons of all sinners, and therefore was made guilty of the sins of the whole world, wherefore Christ not only was Crucyfied and Died, but sin also (through the Love of the Di­vine Majesty) was laid upon him: When sin was laid upon him, then cometh the Law and saith, every sinner must dye: Therefore, O Christ, if thou wilt answer, become gu [...]l [...]y, and suffer Punishment for sinners; thou must also bear sin, and Malediction; further, that God sent his Son into the World, saying, be thou Peter that denyer, Paul that Persecutor, Blas­phemet and cruel Oppressor, David that Adulterer, that Sincer, which did Eat the Apple in Paradise, that Thief which hanged upon the Cross, and briefly, be thou the Person which hath committed the sins of all Men; see therefore that thou pay and satissy for them: Here now cometh the Law and saith, I find him a sinner, and that such an one as hath taken upon him the sins of all Men, and I see no sins else but in him, therefore let him dye upon the Cross; and so he setteth upon him and killeth him.’ This he also calleth the principal Article of all Christian Doctrine, which the Popish School­men have altogether darkned: Therefore he usually said, and that in this Sense, that it was, Articulus stantis & cadentis Ecclesiae.

Having thus laid this as a Glass before our Author, whence he may discern how alternately in Luther, as well as Luther revived in the Doctor, we shall proceed to the manner of his managing his charge against Dr. Crisp, which he does two ways, some few instances I shall Remark, from whence the Reader may as by a narrow crev [...]e to a large Room, have somewhat a fair Prospect of the Spirit of the Man; as

1. By parcelling out some peculiar Sentences, as he though might best serve his turn, and that sometimes in the very same Section, from its dependance upon either what goes before, or its relation unto that which follows, to build his invective charge upon, whereas had the whole been rendred entire, either as to a Sentence, Paragraph, Section, or the mutual relation that one part of his Bo [...]k hath to another, there would have been no room for his scurrilous and blasphemous Hypothesis: But such a faithfulness he knew would have spoy­led his Game, and thereby his Idol would have been more openly exposed to the View of his Reader: As for instance,—1. In pag. 2. He quotes the Doctor, pag. 363, 364. In reference to all Election, That if an Elect Person should happen to dye before he be called, yet that Election shall secure him, speaking of the certainty and Irreversibleness of that Doctrine, and the decree of God touching such an Elect Vessel: He does nor say he shall dye before he be cal­led or regenerated, though this is that he would amuse his Reader with: The [Page 12] expression is much like that of the Apostle Paul, Gal. 5. 4. Whosoever of you are justified by the Law, ye are fallen from Grace. Now we know that accor­ding to the Analogy of Faith, neither of these properly and nakedly conside­red in themselves, as abstracted from the design of the Spirit of God in them, can be true. For can there be a Justification by the Law? Or a falling from Grace? Though our Author be for a falling away from Grace, as p. 162. Who can help him? For as he practifes, so he believes, and as he believes, so he practises: He can speak truth when it serves his turn, though with an Equivocation; he can boldly also maintain a Falshood, provided it be but neatly cover'd with a shew of truth: His words are, do not Divines generally conclude, that if David had not repented of his gross sins he fell into, he had Perished? For this let him repair to what David saith, when he comes as un­der an approaching Prospect of Eternity, whether it be his Repentance or God's Covenant barely as such, and not on the account of the former, that gives him cause to admire the goodness of God towards him, 2 Sam. 23. 5. Namely, God's having taken him into such a Covenant with himself, as was in all respects well ordered and sure. Compare with 2 Chro. 35. 22, 24. with 2 Tim. 2. 13. Upon which Texts let our Author exercise his Armiman Dex­terity; now it is a known Rule that it is by Scripture, we must expound Scrip­ture, none being of a private Interpretation. And thus indeed we ought (un­less we have bid adeu to all Modesty, Candor and Honesty) to deal with Authors. Therefore it is that which follows and our Author thought convenient to omit, and that in the same Page whence he fetches part of his Accusation, p. 364. It is true, saith the Doctor, such 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 is only believing that is Evidence to Men of things not seen, &c, This he further explains against the Accusers of his day, The Charge is this, that I should affirm, that an Elect person should live and dye a Who [...]emongor and an Adul­terer; and in all kind of Prophaneness; and though living and dying Dr. Crisp, pag 637, 638. in this kind of Prophaneness, he shall be saved. Which, how con­trary is it unto the whole course of my Ministry, ye are Witnesses. I dare be bold to say, you all know it to be a gross, notorious, and groundless Slander. You know, concerning this thing; an Elect person being an Elect person, it is im­possible that such an one should miscarry, and not be savèd. He that is Ele­cted unto Salvation, either God's Election must be frustrated, which is impossible, or this person must attain unto Salvation. I think no Man of those that have cast this imputation upon me will deny it; but withall, this I said before, and so I shall say still. there is no Elect person, suppose him to be capable▪ and come to years, shall dye before he be called, that is, before the Lord give Faith to this person to believe, and in some measure frame this Elect person to walk by the Spirit according to the rule of the Spi [...]it. In a word, this person is changed in Conn [...]rsation. The principle is this. He that believeth shall be saved, and, he that believeth not shall be Damned; and, no unclean thing shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; every Soul therefore, being Elected, as it shall be saved at last, so is it, or shall in ‘[Page 13] time be called, and inabled to believe, and walk as a child of light. If this be not true Doctrine, then I desire my Mouth may be stopped. Again, let me tell you, Beloved, Christ is a Free Way for a Drunkard, for a Whore­master, for a Harlot, an Enemy to Christ; I say, Christ is asDr. Crisp. p. 33. Free a Way for such a person to enter into him, as for the most Godly Person in the World. But do not mistake me, do not say, Christ is a Free Way to walk in him, and yet to continue in such a condition; for Christ will never leave a person in such a Filthiness, to whom he hath given to enter into himself; mark well what I say; but for entrance into him, Christ is as Free a Way for the vilest sort of sin­ners, as for any Person under Heaven. If Christ hath given a Heart to a Sinner, to set footing into himself, that is, to receive, to take him for his Christ; if Christ hath given him a Heart to take him for his Christ in rea­lity, to take him truly and unfeignedly; Christ is a Way for such a Person to the Father, though he be the vilest Person under Heaven: And he is to him a Way unto the Father, even while he is ungodly, before he is amended, and he may take his part in this Christ, as an ungodly person as well as when he is Righteous. In this regard, I say, Christ is a Free Way, God looks for nothing in the world from the Sons of Men, be they what kind of Men soever, he doth look for nothing from them, to have a right to Christ; but he did freely give Christ unto them, without considering of any thing, that they might bring along with them.’ Our Author, p. 73. quotes the Dr. 210. thus, can he be said to accept of Christ, who hath a knife in his heart to murther Christ, and that without so much as laying down his Armes? And thereupon runs upon his old harrangue, not regarding what follows immediately and especially in the very next page, I do not speak to the intent that any should conceive that ‘God leaves persons Rebellious, Vile, and Loathsome, as he doth find them, when he closeth with them; but I say at that time, when theDr. Crisp. pag: 211. Lord closeth with Persons, he closeth with them in such 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 Person in the World, and his Breast for thy Mouth to suck,—’In Chapter the 3d. our Author chargeth the Doctor with this as an errour! The very act of God! laying sins on Christ upon the cross is the very actual discharge of all the Elect for all their sins, p. 298. Which the Doctor proves, and therein his meaning will appear; In the very 2d. Page after this, in these words from Heb. 10. 14 So that now a ‘believer is not to wait till a new sacrifice be performed, that he might be discharged from such and such a sin; but as soon as ever he hath commited this sin of his, he hath the Lamb of God in his eye, that takes Dr. Crisp. pag. 300. 301. away the sins of the World, that hath already taken away this very sin, that at this very instant he now committed. Belov­ed consider well of it, either Christ hath taken away all sin already, or else one of these two things must needs follow: Either the Believer him­self is to bear his own sin, or else Christ is to come again and [...] [Page 14] thing more to take away that which remains behind: I say, if all sin be not taken away, by what is done already, there must be somewhat done to take away that which is not taken away: But saith the Apostle in the end of Chap. 10. to the Hebrews, There remains now no more sacrifice for sin. In vain do men now look for something else, to come to take away this and that transgression: for there remains no more sacrifice for sin; that one sacrifice did all that was ever to be done, and therefore there is no more to follow after: If therefore all be done by Christ that is to be done, to make perfect the comers unto him, and to save them to the uttermost; then all the sins that Believers now commit, that Believers hereafter shall commit, nay, all the sins that all the Believers to the end of the World shall commit, they are already laid upon Christ, he hath nailed them to his Cross. Therefore, saith the Apostle, in the First Epistle of John, ch. 1. v. 7. The blood of Jesus Christ his Son, cleanseth us from all sin.’ He further quotes the Dr. p. 375. and bids us see, and what we find there, no doubt but he thought it his safest course not to transcribe: As, ‘There is not a moment of time in which Iniquity is transacted back again from Christ, and remains upon a particular person—That this discharge of sin is the security of per­sons from wrath.—That Sureties are the comfort of imprisoned and decayed Debtors, and so all along.’ Also, p. 289. The Dr. holds forth the parallel betwixt the Scape-goat and Christ, in the Typical nature thereof; the Mystery whereof, whoever, as to its substance, discerneth it not, I dare warrantably say, he is no Believer. As for p. 28. we shall consider it anon; and therein, our Author's most notorious falshood: But all this is for no other end, as is manifest throughout the Chapter: and his whole Book indeed, but to introduce Faith, Repentance, &c. not only as the very Conditions, for which we are pardoned, but the very matter, in which we must be justified, though he assign the cause of both, in the Merits of the same, unto the Death of Christ: This is directly the Council of Trent: Besides, the rank Socinianism that he belcheth out of his Blasphemous Gorge, in this very Chapter. Page 14. That things are so adjusted, that forgiving the Elect, should be an effect of Christ's Kingly Office, as well as his Priestly Office; for which he quotes, Act. 5. 31. mark it well: He assigns as equal a cause unto Regeneration, which more particularly looks unto the Kingly Office of Christ, who, as a Prince, gives Repentance; as he does to the suf­ferings of Christ, which more properly belongs to his Priestly Office, for the forgiveness and actual discharge of us from our sins. Thou wilt find, In­genious Reader, That in the whole of his acknowledgments of Christ, as to his death and sufferings, That indeed he was no more than a Metaphori­cal Sacrifice; which will further appear, ch. 6. p. 35. And that which he makes light of, in reference to Dr. Crisp, p. 616, 617. As to faith's being the fruit of union, will be found to be as certainly true, as that God is before the Creature: For is not the Spirit of God essentially divine? And is not faith the fruit of the same Spirit? Can we believe antecedently to his actual pos­sessing of our hearts, any more than an effect can issue forth in its genuine [Page 15] production, without the precedent efficiency of its natural cause? On this foundation it is, that the Scripture fixeth our union barely and rootedly as such, in a passive sense, though thereupon it is by faith, that an actual, real, closing consent does issue, and communion from the same. Therefore he that is joyned to the Lord, is one spirit, and he that hath not the spirit of Christ is none of his; And should the spirit of God withdraw whol [...]y and totally even from a Believer (which though it never shall be) where would his faith be? It would evaporate into a meer fancy; which the As­sembly do well express, chap. 10. Artic 2. This Effectual Call is of Gods free and special Grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in Man, who is altogether passive therein, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this Call, and to embrace the Grace offered and conveyed in it.—And, with our Authors good leave,—Note, That it is the Cause, and not the Effect, that gives a B [...]ing to things.

How ingeniously he hath dealt with the Dr. in this Chapter, let the Traduced Answer, which he fully does, p. 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 365, 366, 367. Wherein he proves, 1. That the Lord laid ini­quities upon Christ by way of Obligation. 2. That he laid the Iniquities of Men upon Christ by way of Execution. 3. By way of Application. We must distinguish between God's application of this Grace, and his own Peoples applic [...]tion of it. Again, our Author, p. 19. chargeth this as an Error upon the Doctor.—That the Elect, upon the death of Christ, cea­sed to be sinners; and even since their sins are none of their sins, but they are the sins of Christ.—And for this he quotes the Doctor, p. 8. ‘Must not he be reckoned to be a sinner, while he doth sin? I Answer, No: though he doth sin, yet he is not to be reckoned a sinner; but his sins are reckoned to be taken away from him:’ But leaves out what follows by way of Ex­plication; ‘A Man borrows an Hundred pounds, some Man will say, Doth not he owe this hundred pounds, seeing he borrowed it? I say, No; in case ano­ther hath paid the Hundred pounds for him.’—Now either Christ hath fully satisfied Justice in his Death, for all the sins of the Elect, or he hath not; If he hath, the Dr. is right; If not, then Christ must be an im­perfect Sacrifice, and died in vain. How much this savours of slighting the blood of Christ, and reckoning it but a common thing; I think it con­cerns our Author to enquire into: further, he quotes the Dr. p. 270. to which I shall add, p. 271, 577, 578. wherein he clear [...] himself all along from the false inclnclusive Consequences that this Author would forge upon him. Besides, let him Answer me this when he is at leasure, viz. Whether the Obligations that a Surety, as such, voluntarily takes upon him, do not actually render him chargeable with that Debt in a Law sense, which he never personally did contract; which the Dr. fully clears in several places. Thus much may serve to discover his Treachery, as to the first b [...]anch of his Method in his Charge against the Doctor.

2. By a fraudulent and violent forcing (with a more than ordinary Je­suitical boldness) of false conclusions upon what he cites of the Doctor's [Page 16] and that either as his Judgment in the same, or as an unavoidably-genuine consequence of the same; Than which, I think, Hell it self, in the full compacted Caball of all its Inhabitants, cannot afford (as to the nature of it) a clearer instance of blindness, and yet malice, deceitfulness, and impu­dence, in the complicated operations of the same. And this appears in that, when, and wherever the Dr. speaks of sin, as the transgression of the Law, to be laid upon Christ, which is fully explained, and all scurrilous and blasphemous consequences thereupon obviated by him, in that it is no otherwise but by a Commutative imputation of Christ's obedience unto us for Righteousness unto Justification, and our sin unto him as the Meritorious cause of his sufferings; He would presently perswade his Reader, by some Philo­sophical consequences (wherewith he seems to be as richly furnish'd as the Owles of Athens) that this cannot be without a Physical Transfusion of the defilement attending the transgression of the Precept, from one subject to another, i. e. from the Sinner unto Christ: A most blasphemous, impu­dent, and groundless inference.—However, this he thought (as Bellar­mine ut suprà; or, as the Quakers say, Look in o [...] thy self for thy Christ, or thy Righteousness) would prove the most effectual expedient to divers sinners from any hopes of a righteousness this way, and to set up an inherent one in the room of the same: Now this branch of his Method, with the Doctor, is manifestly included in his 2d, and 7th Chapters: And we shall consider with what Equity he lays down his Charge: As,

1. In his second Chapter, he taxes the Doctor to hold, 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 the real filthiness and loathsomness; yea, so that Christ was really the Blas­phemer, Murderer and Sinner, and so accounted by the Father. Now, what countenance he hath received for this bold and wretched assertion, as to the ends for which he brings it, we must see into his Quotations of the Dr. together, how justly he hath dealt with him, As, p. 312. he tells us, That it is iniquity it self that the Lord laid upon Christ; not only our punishment, &c. But whether doth he say, that it was laid upon him, or infused into him? I confess, it is the former he says; and that in the very same Page, but that it was transacted to him. But, Doth he say, that it was transfu­sed into him? Not at all; but he says, It is not only iniquity, but iniquity it self, that the Lord hath laid upon Christ; and not onely so, but the fault of the transgression it self, and that with an, &c. which I mostly fear: Nay, but he says more plainly, and names such sins, as that I dread, and am ashamed to mention them; How much more will not Christ stand aloof off from such things and persons guilty of them, as Idolatry, Blasphemy, Murder, Adultery, Theft, Lies, and Drunkenness; and that all these be­came actually the Transgression of Christ, as those which have part in him, p 270. Now, if so, Christ must necessarily become unholy. And it is impossible that such an one should be a Saviour, nay, so much as a Prophet, who is thus made, to eat and to drink with, but also receive, and become a [Page 17] friend of Publicans and Sinners, Luk. 5. 29, 30. ch. 15. 2. ch. 7. 34, 37, 39. Against such horrid black Doctrine, my heart doth rise even to a Murmur­ing: But, Doth he say, that though sin, in the fault or act of Trans­gression, was so laid upon Christ, that he, in his own Person did either act, or commit it? No; that's not it; (though indeed it is it that he would amuse his Reader with;) but he says, That we are not compleatly sinful, but Christ being made sin, was as compleatly sinful as we, and (which plagues me more, there is another treacherous, &c. that follows) that God himself did count him among the number of transgressors, p. 268. I pray, to avoid clamours and jealousies, let us hear the Doctor speaking for himself; As, p. 312. com­pared with p. 265. That iniquity of Gods people is no otherwise disposed of, by way of Transaction from them, but only on the back of Christ; and not into him; none can bear or carry Iniquity from them, but he alone: p. 267. saith he, Be­loved, mistake me not, I say not, That ever Christ was, or that he ever could be the Actor or Committer of any Transgression; for he never committed any sin himself: p. 270, 268, 280. comp. p. 281, 272, 273, 283. God doth really pass over sin upon Christ, still keeping this fast, That Christ acted no sin, but in respect Dr. Crisp. p. 283. of transgression, in respect of conveyance, in respect of passing of accounts from one head to another, in respect of that there is reality of making of 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, he is not barely supposed to be the Debtor; but, by undertaking of it, and legally having it past upon him, he is as really and truly the Debtor, as he was, that was the Principal before; I say▪ as really and truly the Debtor: So that there is an absolute truth and reality of God's act, in passing over sins upon Christ. So much for the Doctor. Observe, Rea­der, our Authors further Treachery, by comparing together the following Pages 274▪ 328, 409, 158, 428, 419, 420. And, Is not all this Sound Do­ctrine? What aileth thee now? Nay, but is it not enough for persons to see that they have the Grace of the Spirit, though they are not Meritori­ous in themselves, yet to bring them unto Christ, who, by his Spirit, still will so carry them unto a more spotless degree of Perfection,D. W. p. 33. Head 5, 6. till at last, by the help of the Merits of Christ (and that free­ly, not of debt, which I abhor) they become one entire, beau­tiful, and perfect Robe of Righteousness, for us to stand in, as Justifi­ed before God to all Eternity. Page 33. Head 5, 6 and Page 102 36. Nay, besides, if this be true, as the Doctor Assets, I am wholly stript and [...]uined in all my hopes, (Thus have ye taken away my Gods which I made, and the Priest, and ye are gone away.) viz. My Faith, repentance, hope, love, patience, and all the excellent Graces of the new Creature, together with all my Duties, Prayer, Preaching, Hearing, attendance upon Ordinances, di­ligence in them, crossing Sea and Land to make one Proselyte, Conference, Zeal, in disputing for Gospel Truth, by s [...]ateing and vindicating of the same, together with the denyal of Carnal though not religious self. Author. p. 67. but more of this in his Concessions, which we now come unto, which is,

The Second General Head to be insisted upon, viz.

II. HIs own Concessions with respect unto the Truth, and the extent of them, where we shall find him as clear, as the Sun at Noon-day, reviving and reestablishing the stated resulr of the Council of Trent, in the Do­ctrine of Justification, and that with the same dogmatizing frame of Spirit, as if he had been brought up at the Feet of Marcellus himself, the great ma­nager and reconciler of Differences in the then Sessions; who in the midst of all their Disagreements, drew up such an Artificial Scheme of Religi­on, that each dissenting Party thought his own particular Judg­ment fully Established; whereas their coalescency or mutual agreement with each other, was laid in another Foundation, that Christ was the Meritorious cause, and only so, of our Justification; Thus their Celestis Pater, Jesus Christ the Sun of Righteousness, the Author and Finisher of our Faith; The Father of Mercies and God of all Consolation, sent his Son to redeem Jews and Gentiles, and that all might receive the Adoption of Sons. Him hath God set forth to be a Propitiation for our Sins in his blood; for this Redemp­tion we ought to give thanks; the meritorious cause of our Justification is our Lord Jesus Christ. Concil. Trident. Jess. 6. Poem. cap. 2, 5, 7. Now who would suspect (as one observes,) the Serpent to look under such Flowers of Paradise? Or that they go about to betray Christ with, HAIL MASTER? But in this their profound Hypocrisy lyeth the Mystery of Iniquity; if that may be called Hypocrisy, as Bernard says of Romes Clergy in his time, which neither for the abundance of it can, nor for the impudency of it cares to conceal it self. Thus by Egregious Hypocrisy, Arrius deluded the Council of Nice, con­fessing Christ to be God of God, yet denyed his Consubstantiality with the Fa­ther. Thus the second Council of Nice summoned to decree the Erection and Veneration of Images, makes a goodly Preface, giving thanks to God they were delivered from Idols. Thus Augustine confesseth how he was seduced by the Manchaean Hypocrisy. Thus dealeth the Trent Council, and as a Coronis of the whole, comes in our Author with such a Masterpiece of falshood and treachery; as if he coveted rather to be the Head of a Colledge of Cheats, than an Undergraduate amongst honest Men. And,

I. For Election, he acknowledges, that the Elect shall in time be Justifyed, Adopted, and Saved, and that in the way God hath appointed; but how is that? No otherwise than that Christ in his DeathD. W. ch. 1. p. 1. should lay down the meritorious cause and price of the same; but as to the matter of our Justificatio [...], included both in what he did and suf­fered that is done when we are effectually called, which as the effect of his Righteoufness in the merits of the same, and the operations of his Spirit is wrought in us gradually here, and consummated in Glory; but as to the change of Persons in a commutation of Sin and Righteousness betwixt Christ, and the Elect; he says, it is ungrounded, and the Scripture knows of no such imputation; compare diligently p. 33. Head 5, 6. p. 59. p. 37. Where he [Page 19] saith, that we stand justifyed by the Efficacy of the Righteousness of another, and that our justifyed State is a continuance of the blessed Effects of the Righ­teousness of Christ, from first to last; That cause is still productive of Sup­plies, as our guilt returns, or necessities and capacities renew or grow; see also p. 102. Thus Bellermine hath learned to play with the word Imputation; Homo Justificatus, &c. A Man justified needeth not the Imputation of another's Righ­teousness, whereby his own inherent Ʋnrighteousness may be covered. And in the tenth Chapter of the same Book; Christus nostras, &c. Christ is our Righte­ousness, not that we are just by the Righteousness which is in Christ imputed unto us. Sic igitur, &c. so therefore is Christs Righteousness imputed unto us in regard of satisfaction, which he performed for us; but for all that, we cnnnot be holden for Just, to wit, clean and immaculate, if the spots and stains of sin be yet truly inherent in us. So this is the general Voice of the Council of Trent, and the Church of Rome, to allow for no other imputation of Christ's Righteousnefs, but such, as by his Merits we have an infusion of Grace, whereby we merit and satisfy God in our Justification; and so they admit of no other formal cause of Ju­stification, but an inherent Righteousness in themselves, and out of Christ.

2. As to God's laying Sins on Christ, Chap. 2. p. 6. which he says was with respect unto the guilt of them, and that only as respecting satisfaction unto Ju­stice; our acquitment from Punishment, or astual Remssion [when we believe.] That the sufferings of Christ were as effectual to put away sin, as if our sin had been transacted on him. (Herein lies a secret hellish rejection of the com­mutation of sin and Righteousness,) that to transact our very sins on Christ, as opposite to guilt, is impossible. (This is begg'd and impertinent; for how can the guilt be supposed to be transacted on him, without that which must neces­sarily presuppose the laying of the same on him, as the cause to the Effect, and both by imputation,) that it is needless for the ends, for which our sins were laid on Christ. (Here is a bold satanical Invasion of the Divine Preroga­tive, in setting bounds to its Decrees, and the methods whereby God hath de­claratively resolved to glorify himself, and that in the full perfection of all his Attributes,) p. 8. this blasphemous Assertion with a more than ordinary Confi­dence, doth he renew, p. 34. Its enough, says he, that he reserving the pecu­liars of a Redeemer, should agree to suffer for our sins; its enough, that we are pardoned and adopted for his sake, when we deserve endless Woe, &c. (Is it so, Friend? but let me tell you, that he that hath no further an interest in Christ, is brought but into Limbus Patrum thereby, and there our Author, unless Grace prevent, will be like to hang even between Heaven and Hell, and that in the Gibbet-chaires of his own Spider-web imaginations.) Thus his Predecessour the Bagbearer of old, cryed out, what need all this wast? He thought if too much were given unto Christ, his Purse would grow low or empty by it: E­ven so our Author under a pretence of great respect unto Christ, will not have sin to come near him, lest any of his unintellig [...]ble Divines, instead of trans­acting it knowingly and judiciously upon him, should (through ignorance, want of skill and Logick) infuse it unto him, whilst he like Rachel sitting close upon her Idols, only dreads the loss of an inherent Righteousness thereby, [Page 20] and consequently an invasion of that poverty of Spirit, as will issue in the downfall of all his self-conceptions, which must certainly ensue upon a through-closing with Christ; as given of God to be All and in all: And further, saith he, that no hurt shall ensue, as if all were done and past, where the sanction of the Law is answered. Pag. 9. But Friend! I still call him Friend! because my answer to, or return upon this, is included in the parable of him, who is so called, when coming unto the Feast, thinking it sufficient by coming, i. e. by a mere act of Faith, as a Grace inherent in himself to close with, and to have a right to this gracious invitation in the general, but not bringing along with him, i. e. by believing his legal Title, and thereby right unto the same, he becomes speechless, and that for want of a Garment, which is an External Co­vering, and not an infused Qualification; and this a Wedding one too, viz. a mutual transferring of interests each to other, not by transfusion, but a volun­tary and juridical Commutation; q. d. There ought first to have been a com­mutative personal Relation between thee and me, who am Master of the Feast, before either thou or any one else can have a right unto the same. Council Trid. Chap. 7. Where speaking of the formal cause of Justification, they call it the Righteousness of God; but how? The Righteousness of God imputed to us? Nothing less, but that which is infused into us: The words of the Council are these, Ʋnica formalis causa, &c. i. e. The only formal cause, to wit, of Justification, is the Righteousness of God; not that whereby himself is just, but that whereby he makes us just: Namely, wherewith he having endowed us, we are renewed in the Spirit of our mind, and are not only reputed, but nominated, and are really just; receiving Righteousness in our selves, each according to his Me [...]sure, which the Holy Ghost divideth to every one, even as he will, and accor­ding to every Man's Disposition and Cooperation. For although no Man can be just, but he, to whom the Merits of the Passion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ are Communicated; yet that is wrought in this justification of Sinners, whereby the Me­rits of the same holy Passion, the Love of God is by the Holy Ghost shed abroad in the hearts of those who are justifyed, and is inherent in themselves, &c. For confes­sing the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, to be the formal cause of our Justification; they would teach us out of Philosophy, that, formalis causa est, &c. That the formal cause Soto saith, is that thing or quality, which is inherent in the Subject; for [...]he form, saith he, is said in relation to the matter, to which i [...] e [...]ves a being by inherency, Pari ergo modo, &c: As therefore the Air is not luminous or lightsome, formally by the light that is in the Sun, but by the Light it receiveth in it self from the Sun; Constantissimum est, &c. It is a most constant truth that neither are we formally just, and accepted by the Righteousness which is in Christ, but by that which himself hath conveyed unto us; we are, saith he, m [...]d [...] just by Christs Righteousness, as by the efficient cause; but not as by the for­ [...]s, Soto de natur, & gratia, lib. 2. cap. 20.

[...]. As [...]o the discharge of the Elect, from sins upon their being laid on Christ, [...] 3 [...]. 12. And here Sophister like ut supra, he goes no further than [...] F [...]rgiv [...]ness, Merits, and in the whole a meer personal Appli­ [...] Whereas these are but the effects of his Death, these are not properly [Page 21] our Righteousness, neither Atonement, Forgiveness nor Merits, nor a meer Application as such of the same, but its in that for which Christ, as being made under the Law, became and was also reckoned Obedient even unto Death, i. e. The obedience of his Life and Death, both to the preceptive and sanction—part of the Law consummated on the Cross, this is our justifying Righteous­ness, and herein lies the full discharge of the Elect, as to their Persons before God. He justifies by his own and not by the obedience of another, his Me­rits, Attonement, and con [...]equently forgiveness of sin, makes way for the ex­alting of his own personal Righteousness, in our juridical discharge from the Curse, and title unto Glory, it being performed by him not for himself, but as a publick Person (which this Author never toucheth, on which indeed the Merits of the cause depend,) and that not as to the mee [...] merits and effects thereof, but the real matter of the same; for Christ to suffer and to become an Attonement for nothing, to have nothing laid to his charge, and if laid to his charge, that he had not an immediate actual discharge for the same, on the behalf of those, in whose room and stead he stood, and took the charge upon him; is a ridiculous imagination: But I am afraid in o [...]r Author a very sly dishonest one, to make way not only for pardon of sin upon the account of an inherent Righteousness, and therein to make the Merits of Christ subservient to our own Merits; but also to assign the proper cause thereof unto his King­ly, as well as Priestly Office, as p. 14. he says, ‘things are so adjusted, that, forgiving the Elect, should be an effect, of Christ's Kingly Office, as well as his Priestly Office; which is rank Socinianism. So p. 27. That Christ endureth the effects of God's wrath, and not the wrath it self: The whole Chap­ter is a bundle of Crudities. Thus vega one of the Standard-bearers of the Council of Trent sayes; Non transit justitia Christi realiter ab illo in justifica [...]os. Christ's Righteousness doth not really pass from him into those that are justi­fyed; nor by it are we formally justifyed; but imputation is of God, which joyns the Merits of Christ unto us, and makes them ours after a fort; in as­much as for his Merit's sake he giveth us Righteousness, whereby we are Righteous. Cum enim per justitiam Christi, &c. For seeing by the Righte­ousness of Christ Mankind hath satisfyed for their sins, and by it is recon­ciled to God, and the Gates of Paradise are thereby unlocked, and all that are justifyed, satisfy, or merit at God's hand, seeing by his Merits they they are Justifyed and reconciled to God, and satisfy for themselves, and merit increase of Grace and Blessedness: Surely it cannot be denyed, but that to Mankind and all so justifyed, Christ's Righteous [...]ess is or may be im­puted to satisfaction and Merit. Augustine was of another mind, and said, Ipse peccatum, &c. He was made sin, rhat we might be made Righteousness; not our own Righteousness, but the Righteousness of God, nor in us but in him, even as he was made sin, not his own but ou [...]s, not in himself but in us. And B [...]rnard excellently to this purpose, Homo qui debuit, homo qui solvit, &c. It was M [...]n that owed the debt, and Man that paid it, for if one died for all, therefore are all dead, that the satisfaction of one might be impu­ted to all, as he alone bore the sins of all.’

4. Of the Elect ceasing to be sinners, from the time their sins were laid on Christ, chap. 4. p 18. We have formerly heard the Snake in his hissings, but now we shall see him in his Bodily Appearance. His words are these, in reference to the whole of the Chapter; ‘Reader, I shall premise, 1 Men are sinners, or cease to be sinners, in several different respects, 1. As to the filth and obliquity of sin; with respect to this they are more or less sin­ners: according to the degrees of their Innocence and 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 be more or less sin­ners, as they are forgiven, or not forgiven. 3. As to the charge of the fact, which was sinful; with respect to this, neither After sanctification, nor pardon, will deliver a Transgressor from having been a sinner; the fact was his. The first and last denominate one a sinner most properly. The second denominates a Man punishable, but not a sinner formally.’—Hence, Reader, observe, whence it is, That a sinner ceaseth, as an Elect and Re­deemed Vessel, to be reckoned of as such, in the account and estimation of God; and that thou wilt find, by his own Concessions here, as to the way of the removal of them, and that in the very guilt and charge of the same, viz. by forgiveness, and that as we are sanctified. As,

With respect unto the Law▪ in its Sanction-part, which mainly looks upon sin in the guilt thereof; this our Author seems to acknowledge. But, How is this removed? meerly, 1. By forgiveness. And herein, if possible, he would, as he hath done amongst Men, breed a debate betwixt even the At­tributes of God. Does Grace so pardon, as that Justice must not have a compleat Justification? And if ever it had it, When was it? For whom? And for what? Was it not when the Blessed Lamb of God, did by the one Sacrifice of himself, take away the sins of all the Elect? And if so, Can the Elect be charged with that, with which he was charged, and that upon their accounts? and for the removal of which, he laid down a full discharge in the shedding of his most precious blood? And was it ever known, that an Acquitment ought not to be as compleat as the Discharge? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect, &c. Rom. 8. God himself cannot, but such as bear the Image of the Accuser of the Brethren (it seems) can. Let such an one have a care, least his own Sentiments devolve not as a Judgment upon his head. Ex ore tuo ferve nequam, &c. For the Me­rits of Christ himself, properly and barely as such, neither can, nor will save any that hath not a righteousness adequately corresponding with the righteousness of the Law, and that both in its Preceptive and Sanction▪ de­mands, Mat. 5. 17. compare Rom. 8. 4. But removed they are, and that very smoothly, though exceeding Popishly, viz.

2. By Sanctification, i. e. when a person is made just and righteous, by an inherent qualification through Sanctification, then his sins are laid up­on Christ, i. e. he receives a pardon. This is the whole scope of this Chapter; And nothing in it does he assign unto Christ, but meerly what is barely meritorious; as he doe; in the whole of his Book. And I very much [Page 23] question, whether so much would have been granted by him, but that he is equally afraid of Hell, together with the loss of his own inherent righteous­ness; the interest of the later, it seems, the Merits of Christ shall subserve, because he hopes it will quit him from a share in the former. Though it is true, that a sence of Pardon, as arising in the seal of the Spirit, from, and to a work of real Sanctification, may be signs and evidences of the same; but it is in reference to a former acquitment from sin, as to its poenal and vindicative▪ charge. But, Whoever yet heard, that the truest mark, or sign, was, ever so proper to, and inseparable from that which it signifies, as to take place of that which is signified by it? Or must be so precedent unto it, either in order of time, or that of nature, that the shadow must give the substance a being? Was ever yet a Deed in Writing proved to be true, that was not so before? Do Evidences give beings to things? Or ra­ther are they not so in the substance, title▪ and setled confirmation of them, before any such testimonies appear? His pitiful, undigested, yea blasphe­mously forced Consequences, in that part of this Chapter, which he calls, The Truth proved, or rather spit at and polluted from the vile ends, for which he produceth them, are not worth the noting: Only let me tell him this by the way, That he that Prays for the forgiveness of sin, with­out a due regard unto that upon which the same is as well legally as gra­ciously founded (The main design of this Author, in the whole of this Treatise, being to overthrow the same,) will be so far from receiving par­don, that his Prayers will be cast as filthy dung into his face, and himself continuing so, certainly spued out, as loathed by the Lord; though, for a while, he may swagger it out a little (like a drunken Beggar, who, till so­beriz'd fancies himself to be some body) in the rags of his own righteous­ness, let him▪ at his pleasure cast his Arminian eyes upon these Texts, and compare them together, 1 Joh. 1. 7, 9. ch. 21. 1. ch. 3. 9. Rom. 7. 17. ch. 3. 25, 26. Luk. 11. 4. ch. 10. 20. 2 Sam. 12. 13. Ps. 51. 1▪ &c. Ezek. 36. 21,—37. Rev. 3. 16, 17. Dan. 5. 27. It is not Natures, but Persons that are justified and acquitted; neither doth the justification or acquittance of per­sons, either in order of time, or that of nature, depend upon the Reno­vation of their Natures. We shall hear what says the Council of Trent to this,———Hanc dispositionem seu preparationem, &c. After this disposition and preparation, doth follow justi [...]ication it self, which is not the remission of sins, but al­so sanctification and renovation of the inner▪ Man, by a voluntary receiving of Grace, and of Gifts, whence a Man of unjust i [...] made just, and of an Enemy, a Friend, that he may be an heir according to the hope of Eternal Life. To which also a­greeth the Eleventh Canon of this Session, Si quis dixerit, &c. If any Man shall say, that Men are justified either by the only imputation of Christ's righteousness, or by the only remission of sins, excluding Grace and Charity, which is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or else, that the Grace, where­by we are justified▪ is only the favour of God; Let him be Anathema. In these words of the Council, is unsolded the very Mystery of Iniquity; for their ju­stification is composed partly of Remission of Sins, and partly, yea princi­pally, [Page 24] of Sanctification, as they call it, and renovating of the Inner-Man. Concil. Trident. Sess. 6. cap. 7. I shall only add one Head more, with re­spect unto our Authors Concessions; the whole of his Book being but one compacted design, to set up a Self-righteousness, or an inward holiness, as the matter of our Justification before God; nay, the very truth is, that he seemeth to acknowledge that Flection, Love of God, the Obedience, Suffer­ings, Merits of Christ, Effectual Calling Prayer, and all other Duties, are but in subserviency thereto, as will easily appear to every intelligent Reader.

5. Of the change of persons between Christ and the Elect, and their be­ing as righteous as he, ch. 7. p. 31. We have heard what the Doctor means by this charge, which he fully and amply explains, and that more expresly, p. 270. Immediately following those words▪ against which Our Author makes so many loud Exclamations, viz. ‘That here is a direct change, Christ takes our persons and condition, and stands in our stead;—What the Lord [...]eheld Christ to be, that he beholds the Members of Christ to be; what the Lord beholds the Members of Christ to be in themselves, that he beholds Christ himself to be.’ So we find, that it is a relative change, and not an inherent or infused one; with which this Brazen fac'd Decei­ver would Blasphemously amuse his Reader; and therefore you will find, that he still diverts it from an external relation, unto which alon [...] the Dr. appropriates it, unto an internal change, both which are separately and di­stinctly handled by the Doctor. And all this for no other end, than to shuffle out the Righteousness of Christ, and to place in the room of it, as to our Justificat [...]on before God, an inherent one. See Dr. Owen of Justific. ch. 8. p. 246. And read it distinctly throughout. Thi [...] appears,

1. From his old, rotten, pittifully begg'd supposition, and (which is worse) his impudent Assertion of the same; ‘That if the righteousness of Christ be ours in any other sence, than as to its meriting, attoning and purchasing nature, it cannot be, but by being subjectively in us.’ And this he takes for granted, p. 31. As, nevertheless, this Mediatorial Righte­ousness is not subjectively in them. And, p. 36. ‘If the Mediatorial Righteousness be subjectively in us, we must grant all those absurdities which the Enemies of Gospel imputation object and the Orthodox de­ny.’ Was there ever found such a piece of profound Nonsence? Is no­thing ours but what is inherent or subjectively in us? For which he de­serves to be hiss'd out of the Schools, and with Nebuchadnezzar, banish'd the Societies of all Rational Creatures; but this cannot be helped. For this we know, that it is a very difficult matter to wean habituated Beggars from their old accustomed Trade; though this by the way, may be obser­ved, that it hath fallen out with him, as it usually doth with Impostors, that whatever success they may seem to have for a time, yet they are often discove [...]ed by their stumbling at, and failing in things of a more minute and less ordinary consideration; as the Magicians in the Miracle of the [...]ice.

2. From the Treachery that lu [...]ks under his seeming fair acknowledg­ment of the very righteousness of Christ, besides that of the effects of the [Page 25] same, viz. That his very righteousness is imputed to true believers, as to what was alwayes undertaken and designed for their salvation▪ yea and is pleadable by them, as their security, and is as useful for their happiness as if themselves had done and suffered what Christ did: So far he. One would think we had him fast now; not one Jot: But I see the snake is never better secured from her poisning faculty, but by bruising her head; so as to discard her of all her policyes; and this he speedily doth himself; for in that which immediately follows, he vomits up his own treachery, viz. That this righteousness is but a meriting cause that Christ, quallifying him for the fitting of us by his Spirit to stand before God, as Justifyed in an inherent righteousness? P. 33. This is the whole scope and drift of this Chapter, notwithstanding it's fair appearance, and especially throughout, P. 33.

3. I desire the Reader to take notice, if he have any regard to the welfare of his own soul, That when our Author speaks of the righteousness of Christ, especially as to the Imputation thereof, he either slily or ignorantly confines it unto that of his work as purely Mediatorial, (which mainly respects the qualisication of his person in the union of both natures, his essential and in­herent holiness, the edequate fitness of the offices assigned unto him for the carrying on of his Mediatory work, and that in the Application of the effects of the same unto his elect, through his intercession for them, when here on earth, and now in glory) But not a word of his rigteousness as a Publick per­son or Common head unto the Elect; that what they did, he considered under that capacity and in that relation unto them, was so truly imputed unto him, as that he was numbred amongst the transgressours, and made sin for their sakes, having their iniquityes so laid upon him, that they become in the Judgment of God the real meritorious cause of his sufferings. And on the other hand his obe­dience both to the preceptive; and sanction▪ part of the Law in the whole of it by a Juridical act of commutation so imputed unto them, as that they there­by become really the righteousness of God in him, and that not as to the effects, much less by infusion, but real substantial matter of the same. Rom. 9. 5. Luk. 1. 35. Mat. 1. 23. Jo. 17. per tot. 1 Jo. 2. 1. Heb. 7. 25, 26. 2 Cor. 5. 21. Isa. 53. 1 Cor. 15. 45, 47. Rom. 5. 18, 19, 21. Jer. 23. 6. Dr. Owen speaking in reference to this truth, sayes that what Bellarmine and others, insist upon, is this; That if our sins be imputed unto Christ, as unto the guilt of the fault, as they speak, then he must be polluted with them, and thence be denominated a sinner in every kind. And this would be true, if our sins could be communicated unto Christ by Tran [...]fusion, so as to be his inherently and subjectively. But their being so only by imputation gives no countenance unto any such presence. However there is a notion of legal uncleanness, where there is no inherent defilement (Let our Author note this) So the Priest who offered the Red Heifer to make Attonement, and he that burned her, were said to be unclean, Numbers 19. 7, 8. But hereon they say, That Christ died and suffered upon the special command of God, not that his death and sufferings were any way due upon the account of our sins; Or required in Justice, which is utterly to overthrow the s [...]tisfaction of Christ. Treat. Justif. P. 277. Now let any one that is not altogether an unintelligible Divine, guess from the l [...]nguage o [...] these four before us i▪ e▪ Bellarmine and Daniel Willi [...] [...] [Page 26] Owen and Doctor Crisp, whether they be not rightly coupled, as you see.

For this purpose I will insert here a saying of, Pighius that I have read (though otherwise a Pontifican writer) which Soto answereth, and laboureth to clear from suspition of heresy, Pighius having considered sundry places of Scripture, as in the Psalms and Job &c. that the Saints of God dare not bring their own inherent righteousness, to the strict tryal of Gods Judgment, Ex his confecit Pighius, &c. (saith Soto) Pighius thence concludes, That our inherent righteousness, if it be strictly examined by the Divine rule, is not perfect, but we are Justified rather by that Righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, which he Exemplify­eth that as Jacob hid under the habit of his elder brother, the true first-born, received his father's blessing; So we receive glory under another's person, to wit, Christ's. Now how doth Soto, with all his subtilty, acquit his Pighius from being an here­tick in so saying Haec omnia, &c. (saith he) All these things, by one word of equivoca­tion are detorted to a sinister sense; who can ever doubt, but that we, the sons of Adam, which by our own nature and ability can bring no merits or worthiness in [...]o God's pre­sence, can pretend or cover our faults with the only righteousness of Christ, in whose right we are sons and heirs of the Kingdom? But when we say, Christ, the genitive case, we do not mean the subject of inherency; That the sense should be, The righteous­ness which is [...]n Christ (as the hereticks grosly▪ err) but it is a note of the efficient cause; that the sense should be, the righteousness, which is that of Christ, being accepted of God, nos influit, doth pour into us. So Soto. Thus we see by what a pretty, neat distinction he would assoil his brother Pighius from being an heretick, al­though he speak the same thing with us: Only I pity Soto his sottishness, that while he would have Pighius to mean by our own righteousness, our natural righteousness, which may not abide Gods strict tryal; He remem­bers not upon what instances Pighius inferred this his true Catholick Conclusi­on; for his instances, by Soto his own allegation, were holy Job, and holy Da­vid, who disclaimed their own righteousness: But I hope Soto will not say, these were now na [...]utal men and unregenerate. Soto, de nat. & grat. 2. Cap. 20. Thus a man may see, by the council's express words, that though they name Imputation, which they call the communication of Christ's righteous­ness, as the formal cause of our Justification; yet they mean nothing else, but that Christ hath merited that charity should be infused into our hearts, whereby we should be Justified; which in summ, is as much as to say, that Christ became a Saviour, by whose merit every man might be his own Saviour; and that by another kind of Righteousness, than that of Christ imputed: This is the sense of the Council; witness her chief Interpreters, for if they had not finely found out this witty sense of the Imputation of Christ's righteousness, it is much to be feared, they had Anathematiz'd the ve­ry name of it, and thrown it into the fire of their Index Expurgatorius, where­soever they had found it: but this and other clear truths in Scripture they can so dexterousl [...] handle, as they can easily evacutate them, by turning them to a most sinister sense, and so are the less afraid to name them, and to seem to avouch them: otherwise as the History of this Council tells us the very name of Imputation found very harsh entertainment amongst the most [Page 27] of their School-doctors, Ibid. See our Author. P. 36. Faith owns the foun­dation of our plea to be in Christ, from whom are derived to us that pardon and right to life, which are the effects of his righteousness; for this we are Justifyed; for that righteousness which is in Christ we are acquitted and adopted, the efficient merit is in him; The effect of the Judicial absolution for that merit is in us; the righteousness is still in Christ, for the sake whereof we are absolved or Juctifyed; God hath for Christ's sake forgiven us, but not for the sake of what is in our selves, Eph. 4. 22 Had not he obeyed and suffered for us, we could not have been absolved for the sake of his obedience and sufferings. And now being absolved or made righteous in a law sense, we have as much matter of glorifying in him, as absolved, acquitted sinners can have: We are Justifyed by his righteousness, that is, for that we are forgiven, and also entitled to life, which we had forefeited our selves, but we are not made inno­cent, nor so esteemed; We are not accounted them who made the Attonement; We still take hold of, or acknoledge and approve, with reliance on it and submission to the terms of the Application of Christ's righteousness; That we by it may be forgiven, and this is our blessedness, Rom. 4. 7. And our Gospel righteousness, which all such refuse, who reject redeeming love from a conceit of their own merits; Or refuse the terms of the Gospel, which by the promise do make us capable of being Justifyed and saved for the merits of Christ, yet their still remain his m [...]rits, though thus beneficial to us in their Application, as the procuring cause of all our good▪ Now I very much questi­on whether the exactest Limner, that ever handled a pencil, could more ac­curately figure out the external lineaments of our most Retrograde Reverend Author, than Soto and the rest of his Associates have deciphered him in his mental reservations and practises to support the interest of a tottering cause; by corrupting Authors to maintain what they never designed, and with­drawing their clearest sentiments of things, so to subserve, and thereby to exact an inherent righteousness, as to make the righteousness of Christ, but a meer pedestal unto the same. Thus he all along his book; Though he confess we are sinners by nature, and that sins do adhere to the best of our dutyes; Yet that when the work of sanctification is perfected, it is that wherein a believer stands Justifyed; Though he assign the meritorious cause thereof unto the righteousness of Christ, let me tell the Reader, and thou wilt find it upon a diligent and impartial Enquiry, that this very thing is not only the scope, but design of our Author in the whole of his treatise.

And this leads to the third thing [or general head] under consideration; Viz.

III. HIs quotation [...] of other Authors for what ends and with what in­tegrity; Wherein upon the clearing of the one, the other will of consequence appear. And herein I shall take the freedom to tell this bold castrating Author, whether he will hear, or whether he will forbear; That had he dealt with a deed of settlement by law, as he hath done with the writings of many of the deceased worthies of Christ, his Ears had saluted the Pi [...]lory long since; For the proof of which we shall.

1. Single out the truly worthy, and more than ordinarily eminent Ser­vant of our dear Lord Jesus, Doctor Owen; who, by the manner of our Author's citing him, is made but a meer Stalking-horse, that he might thereby the more covertly pursue his game. But before we proceed, by the way note this, as our Author's peculiar Checker-working-genius, especi­ally in this his Treatise; That when he cites any truth, which is so really, in its own nature and proper place, out of any one Author; and thereby to represent a seeming Heterodoxy of what is more fundamentally Doctrinal in another; He makes indeed but an artificial engine of the same, to un­dermine that for which the former brings it in, and the latter as equally maintains; and thereby to introduce that, against which both of them mainly and jointly set themselves. Take an instance in general, and that both as to the persons and matter in hand before us—Dr. Crisp asserts [as the main drift and scope of all his Writings (especially when he is upon this very Thesis) do manifest. That God hath nothing, and that he can find nothing to lay to the charge of his Elect, personally as such; no, not sin poenally as such, not but that the Dr. acknowledges them sinners in them­selves, barely considered as such; but he speaks in reference to their relati­on unto Christ, as their representative Head, p. 270, 271. wherein, though he was and is Mediatour on their behalf, but not properly as Mediator is he a publick Person; for a Surety and Dayes-man are two distinct Offices, though both in Christ: And that sin was so transacted upon him, as that he was in a Juridical, or Law-sense, and that both by obligation from Eter­nity, and Execution on the Cross, reckoned to be the Lamb of God, slain from the beginning of the World, both in the determination of God, and his own personal actual and untypical engagement for them in time; And that it is not when they believe, nor by, much less for believing, that God cannot charge an Elect Person with sin (as that it is not for, or because of calling, that Christ is the power and wisdom of God, but by being called we come to discern the same:) for this would either exclude a free Agen­cy and consequently an Immutability in him as also a sufficiency in the Sa­crifice of Christ, or it must include, that God's charging, or not charging of a Person with sin, in a vindicative sense, depends really on Faith; for when an elect vessel is brought, through [...]race, to believe, God sees nothing new in him, though in reference to his actual union with Christ, and the change of his nature, as well as state thereupon, he does—yet it is not for either of these, that sin is laid to his charge, in the forementioned sense; but that hereby he becomes an actual possessor of this Grace; and thereup­on to discern God's having laid his sins, in the poenal charge of them, upon Christ, which he voluntarily undertook in the Eternal compact, and, in time, actually removed, by laying down a price, in his Sufferings and Death, compleatly answering the demands of an infinite Justice, and that as the Representative head of all the Elect; whereby he becomes, The Lord their righ­teousness. Now the end for which the Doctor urges this, is, in short; That it is not for any thing wrought in and by us, though of God himself; not [Page 29] only in a meritorious, but material sense; that sin is either not charged up­on us, ut suprà, or that we are, or shall be justified before God; but that by believing, we come actually to apply unto our selves what was before both designed and done for us. This the Apostle is express in, Gal. 2. 10. I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the Faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me, 2 Tim. 1. 9, 10. Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling; not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the World began: But now is made manifest, by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to life, through the Gospel. And it is in defence of the very same truth, as to the sum and substance thereof, namely, the Doctrine of Justification (though, as to propriety of speech, they might differ in their Judgment) that Dr. Owen, as well as Dr. Crisp be­fore him, (The latter our Author takes no notice of, as knowing it would spoil his design) being, in both of them, the same cautions, that in the Commutation of Persons, i e. Christ and Believers, by a transaction of sin and righteousness, it is not to be understood of infusion, but imputation: And yet this wretch, from a complication of craft, malice and impudence, would form a weapon out of those very Arguments, that Dr. Owen makes use of against the scurrilous charges of Bellarmine, together with himself and others, to maim, undermine, and totally overthrow that very truth, (though it must needs be through the sides of Dr. Crisp) in the defence whereof they are both designed and urged. Treatise of Justif. p. 282, 283, 285. For he might as equally have curtail'd the obviating cautions of Dr. Crisp against Dr. Owen, when he speaks particularly to the point in hand, as he hath done those of Dr. Owen's, in his charge against Dr. Crisp, when he is upon the same subject. We shall now descend unto particulars; a few whereof may give us an insight into the spirit and judgment of the Man, with whom we have to do; As,

1. He would have Dr. Crisp to hold, That the Elect, though they should happen to die before calling, yet they should be saved. Which he pursues with his usual sort of invectives; but this hath been formerly spoken to, and cleared, from the Doctor's own Explanation of himself; which he would yet further urge upon him in his supposed absurdity of the same, from p. 5. where he quotes Dr. Owen, p. 305. As if the former were not for Regeneration, or Effectual Calling, as a fruit of Election, as well as the latter; And that in these words, ‘Notwithstanding this full plenary satisfacti­on of Christ,’ (let the Author note this, for surely, as a Dagger, hath he produced it against the very life of his Cause)Dr. Owen's Trea­tise of Justific. p. 305. ‘Yet all Men continue equally to be born by Nature Children of wrath; and whilst they believe no [...], the wrath of God abide [...]h on them, John 3. 36. that is, they are obnoxious unto, and under the Curse of the Law.’ Now let us see how far Dr. Crisp accords with Dr. Owen, and whether he be against a being called [Page 30] out of the state of nature, or that any one can be saved living and dying in the same; For this, see what he says in p. 359, 354, 360, 361, 364, 366. ‘And I will leave it with you as a cauti­on,P. 359. to distinguish between the Lord's act of laying Iniqui­ty, for that is his only, and the Believers act of applying this Grace to himself, that iniquity is laid. When we believe our Iniquities are laid on Christ, is one time; when God doth lay that iniquity that we in time do believe is laid, is another time. God, long before we believed, laid our iniquities upon Christ; and when we do Believe, the foundation of our believing is an ancient grant, that we find upon record, enacted and en­tred long ago. Faith hath a word of truth, if it be truth whereupon it doth build. It looks not for present Revelations of things not extant before, but takes things as it finds them upon Record. When the Re­cord is first entred; nay, when the act was first made from whence the record was entred, then was the grant; then God did his part in laying of iniquity upon Christ: And we, in time, by the Grace of the Lord given to us do find out the ancient grant of his, which now, at be­lieving, becomes apparent, and so comes our Application.Page 359. Application is at present, or may be hereafter; but the laying of iniquity it self, is an act passed long before by God—Concern­ing the laying of iniquity upon Christ, he doth not make a new act; all that he doth, is, by the publication andPage 353. Page 394. manifestation of i [...]. And that, from eternity to eternity the Lord reckons all things as he had then and there set them down; we actually do commit sin to day, yesterday, and the sin of to morrow; they were all open and fair in the eyes of God, the Lord, from all eternity, looking upon these transactions, assented to this, that, that Christ, for whom he would prepare a Body, should, indeed, in time, actu­ally bear all these transgressions. But, in God's account, they must be reckoned, as born from all Eternity, by Christ, by way of Obligation.—Also, that the Lord did lay iniquity upon Christ, by way of execution: I mean thus, The Lord did lay iniquity upon Christ, as he did, in time, serve the Exe­cution upon Christ—Further, there is one thing more very considera­ble yet behind, that is, The Lord's laying iniquity upon Christ, by way of Application: I mean thus, when it is that thePage 360. Lord doth single out this and that, and the other person, that are now present; and doth take your very sins that you have com­mitted, and shall commit hereafter, When doth the Lord lay these very Iniquities upon Christ? Concerning the Elect in general, as they were in the eye of the Lord, before they had a real existence and being, so all their Iniquities were laid upon Christ from Eternity; But it must be granted, Be­loved, that the particular application of this Grace to Persons, that the Lord hath laid my Iniquities, and thy Iniquities upon Christ individually, must needs be in time. Before a Person is in being, there cannot be a Personal Application of the Grace of God unto that Person; God cannot [Page 31] apply his Grace to nothing. Though, in his Eye, he may apprehend a Person, as being, though not actually being, and so reckon Christ as a sin­ner, instead of that Person when he shall be; yet, to say, such a one by Name, this Person's Iniquities are laid upon Christ, and the Lord doth reckon thee in Person, as such a one, who hath not one Iniqui­ty he can charge upon thee, that is done in time. Now it will beP. 361. worth the while, to know when the Lord doth single out particu­lar several Persons, and when this Grace of laying this Persons Iniquities upon Christ, is appropriated by the Lord to this Person: For you must know, there is a two fold appropriation of God's Grace of laying Iniqui­ty upon Christ. There is God's application, and Man's application; God's application is, when he himself doth say from Heaven, that he loves this very Person; and that the Iniquities of this very Person are carried away by Christ. Man's application is, when God gives to Men to be­lieve, and by this act of believing, to be perswaded and resolved that the Lord hath done it.’—Further, ‘It is true, such an Elect Per­son, not called, is never able to know individually of himself,P. 364. that he is such a one that God hath nothing to charge upon him, because, till calling, God gives not unto persons to believe, and it is only believing that is evidence to Men of things not seen.’ And yet further he declares, the necessity of regeneration, and the act of conversion, and of a time of being born again, and that whatever right and title an Elect vessel may have unto this grace of God, yet he doth not make it known to him, till such a time as he doth call him, p. 366, 367. This, methinks, seems pretty fair and honest in the Doctor. Whence then is it, that this blustering zeal in our Author should arise against him? Is it from his obhor­rency of sin? Nothing less: for we find him in an actual contrived com­pliance with various sorts of them, in the management of his charge a­gainst him. Is it from his love to God and Christ? so far as it may consist with the breeding of a variance betwixt the Attributes of God, a Dethron­ing of Christ in his Person, as Mediator, a promiscuous disordering of his Offices, as he stands in them, peculiarly and properly related unto his Church and People, and they to him. But is it not from the care that he seems to have of Souls? Yes, but always provided that th [...]y make no fur­ther use of Christ, as to his Obedience, Righteousness, Sufferings and Attone­ment, than that by them he hath procured the Spirit, to work a righteous­ness in them, in which materially they shall for the aforesaid Merits, if they persevere in faith and holiness, stand justified before God—And now we shall see for what end it is, that he quotes Dr. Owen, ut suprà, from what immediately goes before, and follows after the same, p. 305, 306, 307. Now observe, Reader, what goeth before in our Author's citing of Dr. Owen, p. 305. in reference unto that, All Men are born by nature children of wrath, &c. from whence he would infer, that sin is not throughly and actually transacted upon Christ, but upon their Believing: And, from what follows after in his said quotation of him, thou maist find the fallacy of his proceedings. ‘[Page 32] It is objected (by Socinus) That the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, which we defend, overthrows the necessity of faith it self. This is home indeed. Aliquid adhaerebit is the design ofDr. Owen's Treatise of Justific. pag. 303. all these objections. But they have reason to plead for them­selves who make it. For on this supposition, they say, the righteousness of Christ is made ours, before we do believe.’

‘For Christ satifyed for all our sins, as if we had satisfyed in our own persons. And he who is esteemed to have satisfyed for all his sins in his own person, is acquitted from them all, and accounted Just, whether he believe or no; Nor is there any ground or reason why he should be re­quired to believe. If therefore the righteousness of Christ be really ours because in the Judgment of God we are esteemed to have wrought it in him, then it is ours before we do believe. If it be otherwise, then it is plain that that righteousness it self can never be made ours by believing; Only the fruits and effects of it may be suspended, on our believing, whereby we may be made Partakers of them. Yea, if Christ made any such satisfacti­on for us as is pretended, it is really ours, without any farther Imputation: For being performed for us and in our stead, it is the highest injustice not to have us accounted pardoned and acquitted, without any farther either Imputation on the part of God, or Faith on ours.’ I suppose this may serve for a time as a delineatory breviate of our Authors critical reservations, till we hear whether Dr. Owen speaks more in his own, i. e. our Authors Dialect. or that of Dr. Crisp's which we shall find; Just preceding his quotation of him, in the same page; As follows, that ‘When the Lord Christ dyed for us, and offered himself as a Propitiatory sacrifice, God laid all our sins on him. Isa. 53. 6. And he then bare them all in his own body on the tree, Dr. Owens Treat: of Justi­fic▪ p. 305. Pet. 2. 24. There he suffered in our stead, and made full satis­faction for all our sins; For he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, Heb. 9. 26. and by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are Sanctifyed. Chap. 10. 14. He whose sins were not actually and abso­lutely satisfyed for in that one offering of Christ, shall never have them ex­piated unto Eternity. For henceforth he dyeth no more, there is no more sacrifice for sin. The Repetition of a sacrifice for sin, which must be the Crucifying of Christ a fresh, overthrows the foundation of Christian Religion,—Further, p. 306. That which the Lord Christ paid for us, is as truly paid, as if we had paid it our selves. So he speaks, P. 69. 5. He made noDr. Owen's. Treat: of Justif p. 306. spoil of the glory of God, what was done of that nature by us he returned it unto him. And what he underwent and suf [...]ered in our stead. Yet again,—God hath appointed that there shall be an immediate founda [...]ion of the Imputation of the satisfaction and Righteousness of Christ unto us, whereon we may be said to have done and sufferedDr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 307. in him, what he did and suffered in our stead, by that Grant, Donation, and Imputation of it unto us; Or that we may be in­teressed in it, that it may be made ours; which is all we contend for. And this is ou [...] actual coalescency into one mystical person with him by faith. Hereon [Page 37] doth the necessity of faith originally depend.’ If this be not a Crispisizing Anti­nominian according to the quadrature of our Author's pericranium, I know not who is. But,

2. Come we to his 2d. Chap. Where having alledged or at least-wise taken it for granted, that Dr. Crisp's Judgement of laying sin upon Christ, can be attended with no other a Consequence than that Christ thereby must become inherently a sinner; From which vile and ungrounded charge, we have heard the Dr. Clearing himself in the first of the four general heads; And therefore shall wave a further repetition of the same; Onely one thing we cannot pass by in this Chapter, which seems to be most remarkable in it, as our Author is ve­ry happy in his notions, is that, on which he would fix the Dr's Mistake—‘That he did not distinguish between God's laying our sin on Christ, as a physical act and as a mortal act?’ Whereas he himself produceth the very comparison, whereby the Dr. illustrated his purpose and meaning therein—And that by carrying a material burden on a shoulder—Now whether this is done by infusion or ap­propriation, whereon the stress of his charge lies; I dare leave it to the deter­mination of the most unintelligible of his Divines next himself this day in Eu­rope; For I perceive that his malice to the truth hath not only sounded, but so craz'd his very intellectuals that I doubt he will prove a very incompetent Referree, Most prodigious in his Blockishness! His philosophy (I see) may well walk hand in hand with his Divinity; Though (for my part) I cannot tell in point of worth which ought to take the wall one of the other. Now unto me, leaving others to their own private Judgments, I do see greater weight in the reason one offers for the proof of his Consanguinitive Relation unto another, that both their grand-mothers, were two old women, than in the whole of what our Author presents us, to prove Dr. Crisp an Antinomian. Thus having laid down, with no small measure of impudence, his forged charge against the Dr. He runs and fetches two or three pickt sentences out of Dr. Owen to back the same; whereas even that he brings from thence is but the Dr's recital and confutation of the same charge, to the same end, our Author brings it against Dr. Crisp in particular, that Bellarmine and others urged of old against the Pro­testants in general, and that as having a peculiar reference to the Doctrine in hand, viz. Of Justification. Now to the same purpose he tells us from the Dr's Treatise of Justif. P. 284. 285. 287. That he vindicates the Reformed from what he calls a horrid consequence, viz. That Christ was a sinner. But how doth he vindicate them p. 285. That,—‘our sins neither are nor can be so imputed unto Christ, as that they should become subjectively his, as they are a Transgression of the preceptive part of the Law. A phy­sicalDr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 285. translation or Transfusion of sin is in this case naturally and spiritually impossible; And yet on a supposition thereof alone, do the horrid consequences mentioned depend.’ And hath not Dr. Crisp said the same? And doth not Dr. Owen bring this in as a defensative of the same truth that the other maintaines, which our Auth [...]r passes by in the pages he quotes, together with those that go before and follow after the same; As p. 287. As, ‘Unless the guilt of sin was imputed unto Christ, sin was not im­puted [Page 38] unto him in any sense; For the punishment of sin is not sin; Nor can those who are otherwise minded, declare what itDr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 287. is of sin, that is imputed. But the Scripture is plain, that God laid on him the iniquity of us all, and made him to be sin for us, which could not otherwise be but by Imputation. 2. There can be no punishment but with res­pect unto the guilt of sin personally contracted, or imputed. It is guilt alone that gives what is materially evil and afflictive, the formal nature of punish­ment, and nothing else,’—Further again, p. 288. 3. ‘Christ was made a curse for us, the Curse of the Law, as is expresly declared Gal. 3. 13, 14. But the curse of the Law respects the guilt of sin onely; So asDr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 288. that where that is not, it cannot take place in any sense, and where that is, it doth inseparably attend it. Deut. 27. 26-4—The express testimonies of the Scripture unto this purpose cannot be evaded, without an open wresting of their words and sense. So God is said to make all our iniquities to meet upon him; And he bare them on him as his burthen; (Rea­der, Remember Dr. Crisp) for so the word signifyes, Isa. 53. 6.’ Now our Au­thor tells us that these horrid consequences were objected by some in Dr. O. p. 283. But who? And for what end were they objected? Is it not Bellarmine? And that with the same design our Author and others do the like this day, p. 282. 283 ‘But it is fiercely objected against what we have asserted, that if the Guilt of our sins was imputed unto Christ, then was he constituted a sinner thereby; For it is the Guilt of sin that makes any one to be trulyDr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 282, 283. a sinner. This is urged by Bellarmine; Lib. 2. de Justificat. Not for it's own sake, but to disprove the Imputation of his Righteous­ness unto us, as it is continued by others with the same design. For saith he, if we be made Righteous, and the children of God through the Imputation of the Righte­ousness of Christ, then was he made a sinner, et quod horret animus cogitare, filius Dia­boli; By the Imputation of the guilt of our sins, or our Ʋnrighteousness unto him. And the same objection is pressed by others, with instances of consequences, which for many Reasons I heartily wish had been forborn,’ But what had the Dr. asserted, that Bellarmine with such evil surmizes doth thus object against? Why, what goes but immediately before, namely, that—‘For the Declaration of the Righteousness of God in this setting forth of Christ to be a Propitiation, and to bear our Iniquities, the Guilt of our sins was transferred unto him in an Act of the Righteous Judgment of God, accepting and esteeming of him as the Guilty Person; As it is with publick sureties in eve­ryDr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 282. case—Further, 2. The Lord Christ's voluntary susception of the state and condition of a Surety, or undertaker for the Church, to app [...]ar before the Throne of God's Justice for them, to answer whatever was laid unto their charge, was required hereunto. And this he did absolute­ly. There was a concurrence of his own Will in and unto all those Divine Acts, whereby he and the Church were constituted one mystical person. And of his own love and grace did he as our Surety stand in our stead before God, when he made inquisition for sin. He took it on himself, as unto the punishment which it deserved. Hence it became just and righteous that he should suffer, the just for [Page 39] the unjust, that he might bring us unto God. For if this be not so, I desire to know what is become of the Guilt of the sins of Believers; If it were not trans­ferred on Christ, it remains still upon themselves, or it is nothing It wil be said, that Guilt is taken away by the free pardon of sin. But if so, there was no need of punishment for it at all; which is indeed what the Socinians plead, but by others is not admitted. For if punishment be not for Guilt, it is not punishment.’ He further cites the Doctor, p. 511. ‘That the Imputa­tion of sin unto Christ, did not carry along with it any thing of the pollution, or filth of sin, to be communicated unto him by transfusion, &c.—And that Christ could not be called an Idolater, Adulterer, &c.’ And then tells his Rea­der,— ‘Thou maist, in other places, find Dr. Owen as positive against Do­ctor Crisp in this, as words can express’—For which I must tell him this, That it is as positive an untruth, as ever the Father of Lies invented, which will ap­pear both before and after, from the occasion of them. As, p. 510. ‘—Obj. If by the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us, we may be truly said to be righteous, and the Sons of God, then may Christ, by the imputation of our unrighteousness, be said to be a sinner, and the child of the Devil.’ Unto which what our Author cites of the Doctor, is part of his Answer. He having pleaded, from the 2 Cor. 5. 21. That ‘to be made the righteousness of God, is to be justified; and to be made it so in him, as he was made sin for us, is to be justified by the Imputation of his Righteousness unto us, as our sin was Imputed unto him.’ Dr. Owen's Tre: of Justificat. p. 508.

‘No Man can assign any other way, whereby he was made sin, especially his being made so by God, but by God's laying all our iniquities upon him; that is, imputing our sin unto him. How then are we made the righteousness of God in him? By the infusion of an habit of Grace, say the Papists generally; Then by the Rule of the Antithesis, he must be made sin for us, by the Infusion of an habit of sin, which would be a blasphemous imagination. By his meriting, procuring, and purchasing righteousness for us, say others: so possibly we might be made Righteous by him; but so we cannot be made righteous in him. This can only be by his Righteousness, as we are in him, or united unto him. To be Righteous in him, is to be Righteous with his Righteousness, as we are one mystical person with him.’ Against which Interpretation the Doctor brings Bellarmines exception in these words; Which is but the same in sum and substance, together with the ends and de­signs therein with that of our Authors against Dr. Crisp. ‘Quinto refellitur, quo­niam si vere nobis imputetur Justitia Christi ut per eam justi habeamur ac censeremur, ac si propria nostra esset intrinseca formalisque justitia, profecto non minus ju­sti haberi & censori deberemus, quam ipse Christus: proinde deberemus Dr. Owen's Treat. of Ju­stif. p. 508, 509. dici atque haberi Redemptores, & Salvatores mundi, quod est absurdissi­mum. Bellarm. lib. 2. cap. 7. de Justificatione.’ Unto which seve­ral Answers are returned, amongst which, this is one, That—‘Christ was actively Righteous, we are passively so. When our sin was im­puted unto him, he did not thereby become a sinner as we are, actively and inherently a sinner, but passively only, and in God'sDr. Owen's Tr▪ of Justif [...] [...] [...] [Page 40] Righteous, yet are sinful in our selves. He concludes, as to this, in these words, That by the Righteousness of God in this place, our own faith and obedience, according to the Gospel, as some would have it, are intended, is so alien from the scope of the place, and sense of the words, as that I shall not particularly examine it. The Righteousness of God is revealed Dr. Owen's Tre. of Justif. p. 112, 113. to faith, and received by faith, and is not therefore Faith it self? And the force of the Antithesis is quite perverted by this conceit. For where is it in this, that he was made sin by the Imputation of our sin un­to him, and we are made Righteousness, by the Imputation of our own Faith and Obedience unto our selves. But as Christ had no concern in sin, but as God made him sin, it was never in him inherently; so have we no interest in his Righteousness; it is not in us inherently, but only is imputed unto us. Be­sides the act of God, in making us Righteous, is his Justifying of us. But this is not by the Infusion of the habit of Faith and Obedience, as we have proved. And what act of God is intended by them, who affirm, That the Righteousness of God which we are made, is our own Righteousness, I know not▪ The Constitution of the Gospel-Law it cannot be, for that makes no Man Righteous. And the Persons of Believers are the object of this act of God, and that as they are considered in Christ.’

See yet further, (for over shooes, over bo [...]tes, with our Author) p. 292, 293. ‘What is that Righteousness, whereby, and wherewith, a Believing Sinner is justified before God; or whereon he is accepted with God, hath his Sins Pardoned, is received into grace and favour, and hath a Title given him unto the Heavenly Inheritance.—And here­inDr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 292. 293. it is agreed by all, the Socinians only excepted, that the Pro­catarctical, or Procuring cause of the Pardon of our sins, and ac­ceptance with God, is the Satisfaction and Merit of Christ. Howbeit, it can­not be denied, but that some retaining the names of them, do seem to re­nounce, or disbelieve the things themselves. But we need not to take any notice thereof, until they are free more plainly to express their minds. But as concerning the Righteousness it self enquired after, there seems to be a difference among them, who yet all deny it to be the Righteousness of Christ imputed unto us. For those of the Roman Church plainly say, that upon the infusion of an habit of Grace, with the expulsion of sin, and the Renovati­on of our Natures thereby, which they call the first Justification, we are actu­ally Justified before God, by our own works of Righteousness. Hereon they dis­pute about the Merit and Satisfactoriousness of those works with their con­dignity of the Reward of Eternal Life. Others, as the Socinians, openly dis­claim all Merit in our Works; only some, out of Reverence, I suppose, unto the Antiquity of the Word, and under the shelter of the Ambiguity of its signification, have faintly attempted an Accommodation with it. But in the substance of what they assert unto this purpose, to the best of my under­standing, they are all agreed. For what the Papists call Justitia Operum, the Righteousness of Works, they call a Personal inherent Evangelical Righteousness, whereof we have spoken before. And whereas the Papists say, That this [Page 37] Righteousness of Works is not absolutely perfect, nor in it self able to justifie us in the sight of God, but owes all its worth and dignity for this purpose unto the Merit of Christ, they affirm that this Evangelical Righteousness is the condition whereon we enjoy the Benefits of the Righteousness of Christ, in the pardon of our sins, and the acceptance of our Persons before God. But as unto those who will acknowledge no other Righteousness wherewith we are justified before God, the meaning is the same, whether we say, that on the con­dition of this Righteousness, we are made partakers of the Benefits of the Righ­teousness of Christ; or that it is the Righteousness of Christ which makes this Righteousness of ours accepted with God.—This therefore, sayes the Doctor, is that which herein I affirm. The Righteousness of Christ (in his Obedience and suffering for us) imputed unto Believers, as they are united unto him by his Spirit, is that Righteousness whereon they are justified before God, on account whereof their sins are pardoned, and a Right is granted them unto the Heavenly Inheritance.’

One more quotation, which, I hope, will set the matter home, and that from p. 503, 504. ‘He hath made him to be sin, that is, say many Expositors, A Sacrifice for sin. Quemadmodum oblatus est pro peccatis, non immerito peccatum factus dicitur, quia & bestia in lege quae pro peccatis offerebatur, peccatum nuucupatur. Am­bros in locum. So the Sin and Trespass-offering are often expressed by the sin, and trespass or guilt. And I shall not contend about this Exposition, be­cause that signified in it, is according to the truth. But there is another more proper signification of the word; [...] being put for [...], sin for a sinner.’ (Have a care Doctor, for if you persist thus, our Author may wheel about with his Armini-Socinian flailes, and let them fly about your shins;) ‘that is, Passively, not Actively; not by Inhesion, but Imputation. For this, the Phrase of Speech, and Force of the Antithesis seem to require. Speaking of another sense, Esti­us himself, on the place, adds, as that which he approves.’ Hic intellectus explicandus est per Commentarium Graecorum, Chrysostimi & coeterorum; quia peccatum emphaticè interpretantur magnum peccatorem; ac si dicat Apostolus, nostri causa tracta vit eum tanquam ipsum peccatum, ipsum scelus, id est, tanquam hominem insigniter scele­ratum, ut in quo posuerit iniquitates omnium nostrum. And if this be the Interpreta­tion of the Greek Scholiasts, as indeed it is, Luther was not the first, that affirm­ed, that Christ was made the greatest s [...]nner, namely, by Imputation. And so much for the Second Branch of Dr. Owen's Testimony, and whether it most serves the turn of our Author, or his against whom it is brought, let him that hath but half an eye Judge.—Come we now to his Third Chapter.

3. Let us see, whether we can meet with any more squareness in this Third Chapter, than in the foregoing, for which he summons the aforesaid Doctor in as his Witness. Here he sayes, as a Charge against Dr. Crisp, That the very act of God's laying sins on Christ upon the Cross, is the very actual discharge of all the Elect from all their sins. As to this, we have heard him, in the first of these heads, explaining and vindicating the truth and meaning of his position; and that in reference to the laying on of Sin upon Christ, by way of Obligation, Execution, and a two-fold act of Application.—Now to prove this his Asser­tion a [...] an Erroneous Doctrine, he flies to his old prevaricating subterfuge, in [Page 38] his process with Dr. Owen, p. 306. But yet the act of God, in laying our sins up­on Christ, conveyed no actual Right and Title to us, unto what he did and suffered. They are not immediately thereon, nor by vertue thereof ours, nor esteemed ours, because God hath appointed somewhat else, not only antecedently thereunto, but as the means of it, unto his own Glory. Thus far he quotes, not regarding what precedes, or what immediately follows, viz. That which the Lord Christ paid for us, is as truly paid, as if we had paid it our selves. So he speaks, Psal. 69. 5. He made no spoil of the Glory of God, what was done of that nature by us, he return­ed Dr. Owen's Trea. of Justif. p. 306. it unto him. And what he underwent and suffered, he underwent and suffered in our stead.

Also, p. 305. Out of what we have before transcribed at large, we shall se­lect this one Sentence, as we have done the former. That,—He whose sins were not actually, and absolutely satisfied for, in that one Offering of Christ, shall never have them expiated unto Eternity.

Further, On the Considerations insisted on, whereby the Lord Christ became one Mysti­cal Person with the Church, or bare the Person of the Church in what he Dr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 276. did as Mediaiator, in the Holy Wise disposal of God as the Author of the Law, the Supreme Rector or Governour of all Mankind, as unto their Temporal and Eternal concernments, and by his own consent, the sins of the El [...]ct were imputed unto him. This having been the Faith and Language of the Church in all Ages, and that derived from, and founded in express Testimonies of Scripture, with all the Promises and Presignations of his Exhibition in the flesh from the beginning, cannot now with any modesty be expresly denyed. Wherefore the Socinians themselves grant, that our sins may be said to be imputed unto Christ, and he to undergo the punish­ment of them, so far, as that all things which befel him Evil and Afflictive in this life, with the Death which he underwent, were occasion'd by our sins. For had not we sin­ned, there had been no need of, nor occasion for his suffering. But notwithstanding this concession they expresly deny his Satisfaction, or that properly he underwent the pu­nishment due unto ou [...] sins; wherein they deny also all Imputation of them unto him.—And notwithstanding our Authors slight representing the Doctors proving the discharge of the Elect from Sins, upon their being laid on Christ, in his Typical Allusion unto the Scape-goat, which he thus expresses, as a ground of the Drs. mistake, viz.—‘Because the Scape-goat carried their Sins into the Wilderness, who expressed their Faith and Repentance, byD. W. Gospel-Truth Stated & Vindicated, pag. 18. laying on hands on it, and confessing Sin; therefore the Sins of Men are taken away by Christ, while they continue impenitent and unbelieving.’ And herein let us see, how far Dr. Owen ac­cords with him,—‘The only enquiry is, how God did make him to be sin. He hath made him to be Sin; so that an act of God is intended. And this is elsewhere expressed, by his laying all our Iniquities Dr. Owens Treat. of Justif. p. 505, 506, 507. upon him, or causing them to meet on him, Isa. 53 6. And this was by the Imputation of our sins unto him, as the Sins of the People were put on the Head of the Goat, that they should be no more theirs, but his, so as that he was to carry them away from them. Take Sin in ei­ther sense before-mentioned, either of a Sacrifice for Sin, or a Sinner, and the [Page 39] Imputation of the Guilt of Sin, antecedently unto the punishment of it, and in order thereunto, must be understood. For in every Sacrifice for Sin there was an Imposition of Sin on the Beast to be offered, antecedent unto the Sacri­ficing of it, and therein its suffering by death. Therefore in every offering for sin, he that brought it, was to put his hand on the head of it, Lev. 1. 4. And that the transferring of the Guilt of Sin unto the Offering, was thereby sig­nified, is expresly declared, Lev. 16. 21. Wherefore, if God made the Lord Christ a Sin-offering for us, it was by the Imputation of the Guilt of Sin unto him, antecedently unto his Suffering. Nor could any Offering be made for Sin, without a Typical translation of the Guilt of Sin unto it. And therefore, when an Offering was made for the Expiation of the Guilt of an uncertain Murder, those who were to make it, by the Law, namely, the Elders of the City that were next unto the place where the Man was slain, were not to of­fer a Sacrifice, because there was none to confess Guilt over it, or to lay guilt up­on it; But whereas the neck of an heifer was to be stricken off, to declare the punishment due unto Blood, they were to wash their hands over it, to testifie their own Innocency, Deut. 21. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. But a Sacrifice for sin without the Imputation of Guilt there could not be. And if the word be taken in the second sense, namely, for a Sinner, that is, by Imputation, and in God's esteem, it must be by the Imputation of Guilt. For none can, in any sense, be denominated a Sinner from mere Suffering. None indeed do say, that Christ was made Sin, by the imputation of punishment unto him, which hath no proper sense; But they say, Sin was imputed unto him as unto Punishment, which is to say, that the Guilt of Sin was imputed unto him. For the Guilt of Sin is its respect unto Punishment, or the obligation unto Punishment which attends it. And that any one should be punished for Sin, without the Imputation of the Guilt of it unto him, is impossible; and were it possible, would be unjust. For it is not possible that any one should be punished for Sin properly, and yet that sin be none of his. And if it be not his by Inhaesion, it can be his no other way but by Imputation. One may suffer on the occasion of the Sin of ano­ther, that is no way made his, but he cannot be punished for it; for punish­ment is the recompence of Sin on the account of its Guilt; And were it possi­ble, Where is the Righteousness of Punishing any one for that which no way belongs unto him? Besides, Imputation of Sin, and Punishing, are distinct acts, the one preceding the other, and therefore the former is only of the Guilt of Sin; Wherefore the Lord Christ was made Sin for us, by the Impu­tation of the Guilt of our sins unto him.’

Further,—‘This was represented in all the Sacrifices ofDr. Owens Treat. of Justif. p. 288. old, especially the Great Anniversary, on the day of Expiati­on, with the Ordinance of the Scape-goat, as hath been be­fore declared.’

So much for this Testimony; I see there is nothing like a cross-examinati­on of Witnesses. And therefore,

4. We shall examine a little of his Fourth Chapter, wherein he would charge Dr. Crisp to maintain, That from the time the sins of the Elect were [Page 40] laid upon Christ, they ceased to be sinners, and that in a formal sense; And ever since their sins are none of theirs, but they are the sins of Christ. In his ve­ry quotation he gives himself the lye, and that from what he cites out of the Dr. p. 8 And also add, pag. 9. Which hath been produced already in proof of the first general head. Now that the Dr. Means no more, than that such cease to be sin­ners, as respecting the paenal charge of sin, will appear from p. 289 290—‘But what is this to the present purpose, if God did not really transact sin to Christ, nor never meant to do it? For if he hath not done it already, he never will do it; I say if he Dr. Crisp's works. p. 289. 290. neither hath nor will, how doth this place prove that he calls things that are not, as though they were? This is certain, Beloved, although all things that ever shall be in the World, are most present to the Lord at one instant: For so they may be said to be in respect of Him, though in respect of the things themselves they yet are not: Yet in all the Scripture you shall never find the Lord expressing himself so, he never calls things thus and thus, when they never are nor never shall be. If Christ have not already born the sins of Men himself, then certainly never shall he bear their sins: For he is not now to do any more, to compass any thing not compassed; And if neither here­tofore sin hath been, nor hereafter shall be laid upon him, how can God call that which was not, nor never shall be, as if it were.’

‘There is therefore, beloved, a certain transacting of sin upon Christ, so really, that in­deed the Believer though an actor of Transgression, is as absolutely and truly discharged of his sins as if he himself had not commited 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 had never run into that debt, so I say is it with a Believer Christ being made a Surety of a better Testament: And thereby becoming really and truly the Debtor instead of Believers, he so bears all the Debt himself, that they are altogether released, and discharged, and freed, as if they never had been in debt. Still I say, this hinders not, but that there is an acting of sin, and commiting of sin every day by the Believer, but still, the vertue of Christ's Suretiship takes off the sin, as soon as ever it is committed, nay, he hath a Proviso a Stock in hanck to satisfy for it before the Commission of it.’

And let me add, what the Apostle says, Rom. 5. 20, 21. Moreover the Law entred, that the offence might abound: But where sin abounded, grace did much more a­bound. That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through Righteous­ness unto Eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

And further the Dr. proves excellently well the interest an elect vessel hath in Christ, from faiths being the fruit of union.—‘Let us suppose, that coming in this place is spoken of believing: Ye will not come to me, that ye might have Life; It cannot follow, that although there be no life till believ­ing,Dr. Crisp's works. p. 614. 615. 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, yet it follows not that there must be believ­ing before there is union. Nay beloved, there is nothing clearer in all the wor [...]d than this principle; Namely, suppose there cannot be life before there be b [...]lieving, yet there must be union before there can be life fetched from Christ; I say, there must be union before believing can fet [...]h life from Christ. For, suppose that the fruit upon a branch should have such a faculty to draw [Page 41] life into the branch from the root; Though this would be a strange conceit, that the fruir growing upon a tree, should have a faculty to draw life from, the root to the branch, whereas the root communicates life to the branch, and the branch, by vertue of that life communicated, brings forth fruit. But yet, suppose the fruit should draw life into the branch, from the root, that is, suppose that faith which is a fruit, growing upon a member of Christ, that is a believer, and a branch, of that body; Suppose that faith this fruit should have such a faculty to draw life from Christ the root into the branch, yet it is impossible that faith should draw life into the branch, till the branch be unit­ed unto the stock: For, beloved, that is Christ's comparison: I am the Vine, ye are the branches; Now, take this comparison; Suppose a branch growing upon a wild Olive, it is cut off from the wild Olive, and for the present it is not united to the good Olive tree; Now can a wild Olive, or suppose it to be a good Olive upon this branch of the wild tree, can this fruit upon the branch draw life from the root of the good Olive-tree, while it is separated and laid aside, and is not united to the good Olive, from which root it must draw life? It is Known to all men, that communion is the fruit of union; There is no participation nor communion of any thing that is Christ's, but as it doth flow from union with Christ; So that either you must say, that faith which you speak of, is not of Christ the root, but hath some other root and foun­tain from whence it hath it's being and essence; Or else you must confess, if Christ be the root, then it must come from Christ by vertue of union of a Believer to Christ first.’

‘Finally, suppose it should be, that coming is believing; Suppose that this life spoken of here, is not in persons till they do believe: What is meant by life here? Beloved, I beseech you consider, the Apostle tells us, our life is hid with Christ in God; And Christ is the life of the world, that is of the elect. It seems then 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; only it manifests that life which was before, and makes that life an active life; Or is an instrument by which that life that is 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 but this; Till believing, there is no activeness of the life of Christ in the person that is elected, his life is in Christ, and was in Christ, and reserved in Christ, till the time of believing, for him; And then doth he the Elect person, become active in life, when Christ doth give him to believe actually.’

‘But to say that this believing should give the first being of that life that should be in persons, is to say, there is not that life of the elect persons in Christ before they do belive.’

‘If there must be our Act of believing, before there be participatingp. 616. in Christ, then mark what will follow those fins which were once laid upon Christ, and taken away from the elect; (For they could not be laid upon him unless they were taken from them) th [...]y are, it seems returned back again, up­on the Believers, whereas they were charged upon Christ, and whereas Christ once paid the full price, and whereas upon the payment of this [...] [Page 42] acknowledged full satisfaction, so that those sins were once blotted out; I say if there must be believing before there be union with, or inter­estDr. Crisp's works. 616. 617. 618. in Christ, it must necessarily follow, that till such believing, the person of that elect, doth bear his own transgression, and is chargeable for his own transgressions, and his transgressions are imputed unto him. But how can it stand with the glory of the Redemption of Christ, that Christ should have all Iniquity laid upon himself, carrying all Iniquity like the scape-goat into the Land of forgetfulness, and yet till the time of that elect persons believing, these sins are returned from the Land of forgetfulness whither they were once carryed, and are a-fresh charged upon this person again. Did Christ bear them away? And did Christ return them back again? Where did you ever find, that sin once taken away, and car­ryed a way by Christ from the person offending, did return back again up­on the person from whom Christ took it away? Suppose this, that men have no interest in Christ, till actually they do believe in him, then it must follow, that these persons, till they are actually believers, are under the hatred of God; For, if they bear their own transgressions themselves, then God be­ing a Jealous God, his holy and pure nature everlastingly hating iniquity, and also the person upon who [...] iniquity is charged; There must be a h [...]tred of God upon these persons till they do believe; And to conceive that God doth hate these persons, is to conceive that God may love and hate the same person, whereas he saith in the 9th Chapter to the Romans, concerning Jacob, that be­ing yet unborn, Jacob have I loved; Here you see love is communicated to Jacob, being yet unborn Now mark, Jacob when he was not yet born, was not an actual believer, till after times Jacob was not com [...] to believe. Well, had Jacob no interest in Christ and the love of God, till such time as he did believe? Yea, he had, so saith the Text, ay, but yet Jacob must be hated till he doth believe, must bear his own transgressions; So that here must be at the same time, upon the same persons both the love and hatred of God, and how can these contraries stand together.’

‘Yet again; Suppose persons have no interest in Christ till they do actually believe, it must follow from thence necessarily, that there is a believing in such persons before such persons before they have union with Christ, and then you must make some other root from whence this believing of per­sons must spring; As for Christ it hath nothing to do with him, for he hath nothing in regard of Communicating his grace and spirit to do with them; but they are believers, and their believing is that which knits the knot between Christ and them; Whence comes this believing? Where is the root of it? Is Christ the root? Then have they first union with Christ, that they mav re­ceive it from him; Then must they first be united unto Christ, and made one with him, and live in him, and by vertue of union with him, receive this faith as a fruit of that union. If it proceed from some other root, I beseech you consider how it can be, and how can this be avoided, but that this con­ceit must needs be exceeding derogatory to Christ, to make anot [...]er foundati­on besides Christ, whereas in Heb. 12. It is expresly said there, Christ is the Au­thor [Page] as well as finisher of our Faith. Beloved, upon these considerations, for my own part, I have receiv'd this Principle that I have deliver'd unto you, and merely the vindication of the glorious priviledges which are proper and pe­culiar unto Christ alone, is the occasion that I do refer the being of Faith it self unto Christ, and to nothing else in the World; and that [...] may uphold these particular and glorious Prerogatives that are proper to Christ, that he may not be robbed of any of them. To this end, I deliver it to you, that Elect persons have a participation and share in Christ himself, even before they do believe; and, let none conceive, that this takes away, or diminish­eth from the Prerogative of believing neither. For there are glorious things done by Faith unto Believers, God hath honoured it above all meer creatures in the World; he hath made it the Conduit-pipe for the conveyance of all that 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: through Faith Christ conveys him­self in speaking peace to the Soul, in bidding the Soul be of good chear; the Soul lie [...] in darkness, while it lies in unbelief. But still that which is proper and peculiar to Christ alone, is not to be ascribed unto Believing.’

Now our Author, to ram up his Fourth Charge sufficiently home upon the Dr. applies himself to his old Jesuitical trade, built upon the Machievilian Max­im, Divide & impera, presents Dr. Owen speaking thus, without any regard, either to, or for, what ends he does the same, p. 284. ‘To imagine such an Imputation of our sins unto Christ, as that thereon they should cease to be our sins, and become his absolutely, is to overthrow that which is affirmed, &c.’ Wholly neglecting what follows, in the very next Page; As, that,—‘There is a great difference between the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ unto us, and the Imputation of our sins unto Christ; so as that he cannot, in the same manner, be said to be made a sinner by the one, as we are made Righteous by the other. For our sin was imputed unto Christ only, only as he was our Surety for a time, to this end, that he might take it away, destroy and abolish it. It was never imputed unto him, so as to make any alteration absolutely in his personal state and condition. But his Righteousness is imputed unto us, to abide with us, to be ours alway, and to make a total change in our state and condition, as unto our Relation unto God. Ours was imputed unto him only for a season, not absolutely, but as he was a Surety, and unto the special end of de­stroying it; and taking on him on this condition that his Righteousness should be made ours for ever. All things are otherwise in the Imputation of his Righ­teousness unto us, which respects us absolutely, and not under a temporary capa­city, abides with us for ever; changeth our state and relation unto God, and is an effect of superabounding Grace, p. 285▪ 286. Again, Notwithstanding the Imputation of the Righteousnese of Christ unto us, and our being made Righ­teous therewith, we are Sinners in our selves (the Lord knows, greatly so, the best of us) and so cannot be said to be as righteous as Christ, but only to be made righteous in him, who are sinners in our selves, p. 509.’ Besides that which our Author, among the rest of his corrupt imaginations in this Chapter would [Page] [...] thereupon, there is one that I cannot well pass by, because of its affinity with an objection of Socinus's of old, as the Dr. cites him.—‘It is objected, that the Imputation of the righteousness of Christ doth overthrow all remission of sins on the part of God. This is pleaded for by Socinus, De Servator. lib. 4. c. 2, 3, 4. and by others it is also made use of. A confidentD [...]. Owen's Tre. of Justificat. p. 297, 298. Charge this seems to them, who stedfastly believe, that with­out that, without this Imputation, there could be no remission of sin. But they say, That he who hath a righteousness imputed unto him, that is abso­lutely perfect, so as to be made his own, needs no pardon, hath no sin that should be for­given, nor can he ever need forgiveness.’

1. ‘Grotius shall Answer this Objection; saith he▪ Cum duo nobis peperisse Chri­stum dixerimus, &c. Whereas we have said, that Christ hath procured, or brought forth two things for us, freedom from punishment, and a reward; the ancient Church attri­butes one of them distinctly unto his satisfaction, the other unto his merit. Satisfaction consisteth in the translation of sins (from us unto him) merit in the Imputation of his most perfect Obedience performed for us, unto us. In his judgment, the Re­mission of sins, and the Imputation of righteousness, were as consistent as the satisfaction and Merit of Christ, as indeed they are.’

‘2. Had we not been Sinners, we should have had no need of the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to render us Righteous before God. Being so, the first end for which it is imputeed, is the pardon of sin; without which we could not be Righteous by the Imputation of the most perfect Righteousness. These things therefore are consistent, namely, That the satisfaction of Christ should be imputed unto us for the pardon of sin, and the Obedience of Christ be imputed unto us, to render us Righteous before God. And they are not only consistent, but neither of them singly were suffirient unto our Justificati­on.’ But,

5. In Chap. the 5th, Though he deals somewhat unmannerly with the Dr. as excluding his Testimony, when, with no ordinary confidence, he can in­troduce those of the Assembl [...]es, though but in their lesser Catechism, to vouch for him, which he might as well have laid aside as the former, for any thing it speaks to his purpose: Yet we must not deal so with our Author, least he should think himself slighted; which would spoil, I fear, the main design of his undertaking.—And therefore let me tell thee, Reader, thou wilt find him Masquerading the Socinian with the greatest Impudence, and that under the most seeming zeal for the Christian Religion, least it should be overturned by Socinianism; that ever I saw or heard of in my days. This he doth in the prosecution of his charge against Dr. Crisp, which he concludes, p. 25. with these words, ‘—Nay, to suppose any degree of suffering on Christ, and not our sins laid on Christ, even though in the Drs sense, would overturn the whole Christian Religion, and justifie the Socinians.’ Here the Whore cries, Whore, first, who thinks to preserve her lost reputation, by scandalizing that of anothers. But how so? He tells us that which he states as the Drs error. ‘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 [Page 45] till his Resurrection.’ And this he summeth up f [...]om his citation of, p. 356, 357. And his tacit reference to p. 360. Where the Dr. speaking of a pitch't time, wherein God served execution actually upon Christ for the removal of sin, &c. which hath a peculiar reference unto his Death, as the Propitiation. He presently diverts it unto the state of Christ's Humiliation in a more general sense, dolosus versatur in universalibus; And makes his life-obedience a part of his Propitiatory Sufferings as that of his death; His words are▪ p. 23 ‘It is not, whether God withdraws, and the death of Christ were the very eminent com­pleating parts of Christ's propitiatory sufferings.’ This I affirm. And, to counte­nance this thus he deals with the Assembly, p. 25. The Question being—‘Where­in did Christ's humiliation consist? Answ. In his being Born, and that in a low condition, made under the Law, undergoing the miseries of this life, the wrath of God, and the cursed death of the Cross, in being buried, and continuing under the power of death for a time.’ And from he [...]ce concludes—‘Thou seest Christ's Incarnation, or being born, and several other things be­fore Christ's Crucifixion, are parts of his Humiliation.’ Why, all this is con­fest: But what is this to the purpose? Or, Is it any thing to the matter in hand? Yes, as he conceives; for he tells us, p. 24 ‘That the whole of Christ's humiliation was a degree of his suffering for sin, and so a part of his Satisfa­ction.’ This is also further included in his stating the ground of the Drs mis­take,—‘That because the hidings of God's Face, and especially the dying Sa­crifice of Christ (who, it seems, was as truely a Sacrifice, and an Expiation for sin in his life, differing only in degree, as in his death) did so compleat and finish the Work of Satisfaction, as the principal parts thereof, &c.’ If this be not Socinianism, next to a denial of the Divine Nature of Christ, in the rankest degree thereof, I know not what is: Now, as to what the Dr. says, is, in reference to an Expiatory Sacrifice for sin; and this peculiarly relates un­to Christ's Priestly Office, not but that he stood under a Juridical charge of sin all his life long, and Immetaphorically underwent the bitter effects of the same, even from his Birth to the Sentence pass'd upon him by Pilate. But none of this was a shedding of blood (though he did Sweat Clots of Blood before) in which the very Essence of a Sacrifice lies, and without which there is no remission, Heb 9. 22. And almost all things are by the Law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood there is no remission. It was then, and then only he actually redeemed by laying down a Price: It was then, and then only he actually reconciled by the Sacrifice of himself: It was then, and then only, he actually satisfied for all the El [...]ct▪ in undergoing the very penalty due unto them. And though it true, his Priestly Office might commence in his entrance upon the exercise of the same, from the time of his Prayer, Joh. 17. Yet his Sacrifice▪ or the Sacrifice of himself, precisely considered, consisted in his actual of­fering of himself on the Cross. Now the general acts of the Lord Jesus Christ, as the High-Priest of the Church, are his Oblation and Intercession: And it is in reference to the former, and that alone, whereby he offered himself▪ his Soul and Body, or his whole Humane Nature, an Expiatory Sacrifice to God in his D [...]ath and Blood-shedding, to make Atonement for the Sins of the Elect, and [Page 46] to purchase for them eternal Redemption; That Dr. Crisp speaks of, as the time that our sins were laid actually on Christ for the removal of them. Though our Author would promiscuously shuffle in this very time and proper act of Christ, as both a Priest and sacrifice to be one and the same with the rest of his state of humiliation, and that for the same ends, which is but meerly to make way for the assigning of the pardon of sin to Christ's Kingly as well as Sa­cerdotal office; That it is as we are regenerated, so we are pardoned, as p. 14. That things are so adjusted, that for giving the Elect, should be an effect of Christ's Kingly office, as well as Priestly office? And p. 17. 18. Speaking of the grounds of the Dr's. mistake sayes, this is one, That because Christ's attonement 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 hath made requisite to our heing forgiven, though not as any meritorious cause? But enough of this nasty stuff. Proceed we in the next place to his 6th chapter.

6. This chapter tells us of a notable discovery our Author has made, That Dr Crisp it seems did not only say that sin was transacted and laid on Christ, which we have heard how and what he meant thereby, but that he was ab­horred and loathed even in his person of God; And quotes him, p. 294. 295, 408. To which I shall with our Author's undisturbed leave call in afterwards p. 409. He adds also p. 279 380, 180. But before we fall into a strict examinati­of the point, consider, That God manifests his indignation, abhorrency and wrath against none of his creatures either Angelical or humane barely as such, much less against him who was not onely immaculate and undefiled, but also essentially one and of the same divine nature with himself, but that on whom­soever sin is charged, either really or by way of impu [...]ation, if ever it be re­moved, it must be by such a compleat satisfaction, given to the demands of an infinite offended Justice, as corresponds with an actual undergoing that wrath, horror and displicency for the same, as sin in the full demerits thereof does include and call for, and that till the very utmost farthing be paid. This we shall find very clear in what our Author is pleased to cite of the Dr's— ‘Nay, from this I affirm, as Christ did bear our Iniquity, so Christ for that Iniquity was separated. Dr Crisp's works p. 294. From God; (Now how was it that Christ did bear our Ini­quity? Sure so as to be charged with the full demerits of them: What were the demerits of them? Mainly a separation betwixt God and the sinner, and therefore said by his blood to bring nigh them who were sometimes afar off. Eph 2. 13.)’ For which the Dr. Brings a proof, though our Author thought meet to omit it, viz. My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? To omit a further te­diousness to the Reader, look whatever elect sinners stood obnoxious unto, that Christ underwent to the uttermost; Or they are yet in their sins and conse­quently Christ dyed in vain. Onely I shall add one more, as promised above, of Dr. Crisp's, ‘This now must needs commend the love of God to Men, that while Men▪ who had deserved Wrath, are in rest and peace,Dr. Crisp's works. p. 409. Christ should not only bear the afflictions of men but the very sins of men too; That God should not only expose his Son to the rod, but to put him into a posture of wrath; For putting him [Page 47] into a posture of bearing sin, he must needs put him into a posture of bearing Wrath; this heightens the Love. It is a great and high expression of Love to adopt a stranger, and make him coheir with his only son. If one that hath but one Son, and that a beloved son, do this, he shall be a Mirrour to the World; If he take in a Stranger, a Theif and Murderer, to divide the inheritance be­tween his Son and him. But beloved, for God not only to take in the Sons of Men Traytors and Thieves, to be Coheirs with his own Son; But also that the Lord should lay the Felony of such Thieves, and the murder of such mur­derers, and the treasons of such Traitors as we are, upon this Heir the son of glory; To lay this upon him, and to execute him for this our Felony and Treason, that we who are Thieves may be the Sons of God; This I say is the astonishing love of God, whereunto there is never a parallel in all the World. Had not the Lord laid Iniquity upon his son's back, making him as it were abhorred for the time, this love of his to men in the utmost extent of it, had never been expressed,’—Now this word, as it wer [...] abhorred of the Lord, our Author himself, p. 27. quotes out of the Dr. p. 108. Which makes me not a little wonder at his impudence herein, especially in the manner of his charge; and though he acknowledgeth that the soul of Christ endured the effects of God's wrath against sin, which would look pretty fair from a well meaning man; But that this was no more than that he was amazed chereat as at the im­portance of the work, &c. And that God testifyed his threatned indignation against sin (but that this came not in the Execution thereof upon Christ, as charged with the full demerits of the same) in that his soul and body was a­gonized in some sort by awfull sufferings, &c. Which is but to make a meer stage-play of the passion of Christ. For this he quotes Dr. Owen.—‘There was no reason why God should hate Christ for his taking on him out Debt and the payment of it (and omits what follows) in an act of the high­est Obedience unto his will. God in this matter is consideredDr. Owen's Treat. of. Justif. p. 286. as a Rector, Ruler and Judge. Now it is not required of the sever­est Judge, that as a Judge he should hate the guilty person, no though he be guilty Originally by Inhaesion and not by Imputation. As such, he hath no more to do, but consider the guilt, and pronounce the sentence of punishment. Now our Author comes in again. Suppose a person out of an Heroick generosity of mind should become an [...] for another, for his friend for a good man, so as to answer for him with his life, would the most cruel Tyrant under Heaven that should take away his life in that case hate him? And the Dr. shews here, and p. 287. The word hate signifyes an aversation or detestation of mind, or only a will of punishment. In the first sense, saith he, there was no ground why God should hate Christ Dr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 286. 287. on this Imputation of guilt unto him, (But lops of what follows) whereby he became non propriae sed alienae culpae reus, (Now he comes in again) Sin inherent renders the Soul polluted, abominable, and the only object of Divine aversation, but Christ was undefiled &c. (And yet there is something be [...]ind) who did no sin, neither was there guilt found in his mouth, to take upon him the guilt of others sins, thereby to comply with and [Page 48] accomplish the design of God for the manifestation, of his Glory, and infinite Wisdom, Grace, Goodness, Mercy, and Righteousness, unto the certain expiation and destruction of sin, nothing could render him more glorious and lovely in the sight of God or man.’ But for a will of punishing in God, wh [...]re sin is imputed, none can deny it, but they must therewith openly disavow the satisfaction of Christ.

I shall further offer him two distinct testimonies of the said Dr's. as to the matter in hand,—‘Then, the matter of punishment being expressed, see the cause of the infliction of it. It was for Transgresions, for iniquities v. 5. For wandring and iniquity, v. 6. For tansgressions, v 8. For sin, v. 12.Dr. Owen against Biddle. p. 503. Let us now remember the general description of punishment, that was given at the beginning; It's Malum passionis, quod infligitur ob malum actionis; And see how directly it suits with this punish­ment of Jesus Christ. 1. Here is malum passionis inflicted, wounding, bruising, kil­ling And 2. There is malum actionis, deserving sins iniquity, and transgresion. How these met on an innocent person, shall be afterwards declared. Go along to the peculiar description of punishment properly so called, as managed by God It is vindicta noxae; Now if all other ends and causes whatever, as of Chastise­ment or Example, &c. Be removed, and this only be asserted, then this Afflicti­on of Christ was vindicta noxae, punishment in the most proper sence?’ The other is this,—‘Respondet doctissimus Tuissus, Deum esse ignem consumentem, sed in­telligentem, et rationalem, non naturalem, etbrutum, at{que} hoc dicit ex eo manifestem esse, quod hic Ignis usserit aliquando non Combustible, nempe filium suum in quo Peccatum non erat quod quidem (ait) documentum esse Potest, hunc etiam Ignem posse Dr. Owens Diatriba de-Justitia Divi­na. p. 128. 129. 130. Combustibile quamvis admotum non urere sed nunquam (si quid ego ju­dico) infaelicius sese expedivit Vir Doctissimus Primo enim, ag­noscit Deum esse Ignem Consumentem, quamvis rationalem et intelligen­tem, non Naturalem et brutum. At comparatio instituta fuit in­ter eventus operationum, non modos operandi. Nemo unquam dixit, Deum brute agere, vel ex coactione, vel ab absoluta necessitate, et principiis Naturae, sine ulla Libertate Concomitante, sed quamvis agat per Volluntatem et Intel­lectum, ita tamen exigente Natura, non minus necessario effectam dum ad­missi peccati poenam diximus, quam Ignis naturali et brutus urit Combustibile admotum: hoc vero non negat, imo confirmat vir Doctissimus, concedens Deum respectu Peccati esse Ignem Consumentem, quamvis, Intelligentem, et Rationalem.’

2. ‘Quod hic ignis usserit! non combustibile, scil. quando punivit filium suum Sanctissimum, nollem dictum a Viro doctissimo: Non enim Deus punivit Christum qua Fillium suum Sanctissimum, sed qua nostri Mediatorem, et Vadem foederis, quem pro nobis fecit peccatum, quum ipse Peccatum non novit; Nem­pe, impegit in eum omnia Nostra peccata antequam castigatio Pacis nostrae super eum erat; Hoc vero sensu ille maxime combustibilis fuit, nempe ut consideratur Omnium nostrorum peccatorum reus, et sic cum eo igne disc [...]ptatus est Jehova, Isa. 66 16.’—I shall not need to translate it; For I am satisfyed that if our Author be as skilfull in the Roman language, as he is in the Roman Religion, he is in the Latin, tongue nulli secundus.

7. The Seventh and last thing which I shall note, with respect unto his pe­culiar way, in Ticketting of Dr. Owen as Witness, and that as we have heard, meerly to subvert the great Doctrine of Justification, by a mis-representation of those very notions and things, that he introduces for the maintaining and fortifying of the same.

The Title of this our Author's Chapter, being a change of Person between Christ and the Elect, and their being as righteous as he.

Now to wave a just Discussion of this head, he slides off, very subtilly, to a change of Natures, i. e. from a Moral, to a Physical change. We have had enough of this before, in both the Drs clearing themselves in this Point. On­ly I shall take notice of what more peculiarly belongs unto Dr. Owen, as his Testimony in this case, and therein let the Reader guess, how far it makes for or against Dr. Crisp, or our Author: though I would desire the Reader to re­mind, ut prius, that he never considers Christ as a Publick Person, but barely as Mediator; and though the former be included in the latter, yet they are both exceedingly distinct, though both entirely in him.

The Truth (as he calls it) by him stated thus, which I shall faithfully transcribe, only desire the Reader would as equally pass by the intrusion of a Parenthesis here and there that may occasionally drop, as I would free him from a charge of presumption, though he fired his Pipe at the same Light with my self.

Truth. ‘The Mediatorial Righteousness of Christ is so imputed to Believers,’ (his Righteousness properly, as Mediatorial, is not at all imputed unto him; though the Righteousness of him, who is Mediator, as their Representative Head is; for, if so, they would be their own Intercessors) ‘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 attonement or meriting price of saving benefits can be demanded from them,’ (Their pardon is no more than an acquitment, and that from an obnoxiousness to what is evil; it does not pro­perly give a Title unto any thing above what is meer releasement, much less unto life eternal.) ‘Neverthess, this Mediatorial Righteousness is not subjectively in them; nor is there a change of persons between them and Christ; nor are they as righteous as he.’ (Who ever said so? or, at leastwise, Who ever dreamt that a change of Persons must necessarily infer a transfusion of qualities?) ‘But there remain spots and blemishes in them.’ (But. But what is this But? there is no spot in the Righteousness that Dr. Crisp, and the Te­stimonies brought against him do plead for; for as it never wanted perfection in its kind, so neither was it designed to be, or shall ever be actually imputed unto Elect believers, by parts or degrees) ‘until Christ, by his Spirit, perfect the holiness begun in all true believers; which he will effect, before he bring them to Heaven.’ (It is thought, that Heaven alone is the state of Per­fection, and that there is no medium from a state of Mortality unto that of per­fect holiness, unless we call at Purgatory by the way.) Now let us sum up [Page 50] the Evidence of this Truth, that when Christ, by vertue, or through the Merits of his Mediatorial Righteousness (provided it be not subjectively in us) hath so procured the Spirit, as to perfect that holiness, which he hath begun in all true believers; why then they may stand justified before God, &c. And thus our Mountain hath brought forth a Mouse.

Now let us see what Dr. Owen says unto this Charge against Dr. Crisp.—‘But yet some will not distinguish between the Covenant of the Mediator, and the Covenant of Grace, because the PromisesDr. Owens Treat. of Justif. p. 268, 269. of the Covenant absolutely are said to be made to Christ, Gal. 3. 16. and he is the [...], or first subject of all the grace of it: But in the Covenant of the Mediator, Christ stands alone for himself, and undertakes for himself alone, and not as the Representative of the Church. But this he is in the covenant of Grace. But this is that wherein it had its designed establishment, as unto all the ways, means, and ends of its accomplishment; and all things so disposed, as that it might be effectual un­to the eternal Glory of the Wisdom, Grace, Righteousness and Power of God. Wherefore the covenant of Grace could not be procured by any means or cause, but that which was the cause of this Covenant of the Mediator, or of God the Father with the Son, as undertaking the work of the Mediation. And this is no where ascribed unto the Death of Christ in the Scripture; So to assert it, is contrary to all Spiritual Reason and Understanding. Who can conceive, that Christ by his Death, should procure the Agreement between God and him, that he should die.’

Further, ‘But some have other notions of these things,’ For they say, that Christ by his Death, and his obedience therein, whereby he offered him­self a Sacrifice of sweet smelling savour unto God, procured for us the Dr. Owen's Tre. of Justif. p. 264, 265, 266. New Covenant; or, as one speaks, All that we have by the Death of Christ, is, that thereunto we owe the Covenant of Grace. For herein he did and suff [...]red what God required, and freely appointed him to do and suffer. Not that the Justice of God required any such thing with respect unto their sins, for whom he dyed, and in whose stead, or to bestead whom, he suffered; but what by a free Constitution of Divine Wisdom and Soveraignty was appointed him. Hereon, God was pleased to remit the terms of the old Covenant, and to enter into a new Covenant with Mankind upon terms suited unto our Reason, possible unto our abilities, and every way advantageous unto us. For these Terms are Faith and Sincere Obedience, or such an assent unto the Truth of Di­vine Revelations, as is effectual in Obedience unto the will of God contained in them, up­on the encouragement given thereunto in the Promises of Eternal Life, or a future re­ward made therein. On the performance of these conditions, our Justification, Adoption, and future Glory do depend; For they are that Righteousness before God, whereon he pardons our sins, and accepts our persons, as if we were perfectly righteous. ‘Where­fore by this procuring the New covenant for us, which they ascribe unto the Death of Christ, they intend the Abrogation of the Old covenant, or of the Law, or at least such a Derogation from it, that it shall no more oblige us ei­ther unto sinless Obedience, or Punishment, nor require a perfect Righteous­ness unto our Justification before God; and the constitution of a new Law of [Page 51] Obedience, accommodated unto our state and condition, on whose observance all the Promises of the Gospel do depend.’

‘Others say, That in the death of Christ there was real satisfaction made unto God; not to the Law, or unto God according to what the Law requi­red; but unto God absolutely. That is, he did what God was well pleased and satisfied withal, without any respect unto his Justice, or the curse of the Law. And they add, That hereon the whole Righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us, so far, as that we are made partakers of the Benefits thereof. And moreover, that the way of the communication of them unto us, is by the New Covenant, which by his Death the Lord Christ procured. For the conditions of this covenant are established in the covenant it self, whereon God will bestow all the Benefits and Effects of it upon us, which are Faith and Obedience. Wherefore what the Lord Christ hath done for us, is thus far accepted, as our Legal Righteousness, as that God, upon our Faith and Obedience, with re­spect thereunto, doth release and pardon all our sins of omission and commission. Upon this Pardon there is no need of any positive perfect Righteousness un­to our Justification or Salvation, but our own Personal Righteousness is accepted with God in the room of it, by vertue of the New covenant which Christ hath procured. So is the Doctrine hereof stated by Cursellaeus, and those that join with him, or follow him.’

Further,—‘This Grace and Glory whereunto he was preordain­ed, was two fold. 1. That which was peculiar unto himself; 2. ThatP. 252. which was to be communicated, by and through him unto the Church. Of this sort was the [...], the Grace of Personal Ʋnion, that single effect of Divine Wisdom (whereof there is noD [...]. Owen's Tre: of Justificat. p. 252, 253. shadow nor Resemblance in any other Works of God, either of Creation, Providence or Grace) with which his nature was filled. Full of Grace and Truth. And all his personal▪ Glory, Power, Au­thority, and Majesty, as Mediator, in his Exaltation at the Right-hand of God, which is expressive of them all, doth belong hereunto. These things were peculiar unto him, and all of them effects of his eternal Predestination. But, 2. He was not thus Predestinated absolutely, but also with respect unto that Grace and Glory, which, in him, and by him, was to be communicated unto the Church: And he was so,’

1. ‘As the Pattern and Exemplary cause of our Predestination; For we are pre­destinated to be conformed unto the Image of the Son of God, that he might be the first­born among many Brethren, Rom 8. 29. Hence he shall change even our vile Body, that it may be fashioned like unto his Glorious Body, Phil. 3. 21. That when he appears, we may be every way like him, 1 Joh. 3. 1.’

2. ‘As the means and cause of communicating all Grace and Glory unto us. For we are chosen in him before the Foundation of the World, that we should be holy, and pre­destinated unto the Adoption of Children by him, Ephes. 1. 3, 4, 5. He was design­ed as the only procuring cause of all Spiritual Blessings in Heavenly things, unto those who are chosen in him. Wherefore,’

3. ‘He was thus fore-ordained as the Head of the Church, it being the design of God to gather all things into an Head [...]’ [Page 52] Again, ‘He is the Head, and Believers are the Members of that one Per­son, as the Apostle declares, 1 Cor. 12. 12, 13. Hence, as what he did is imputed unto them, as if done by them, so what theyDr. Owen. Treat. of Justif. p. 246, 247, 248, 249. deserved on the account of sin, was charged upon him. So is it expressed by a Learned Prelate, Nostram causam sustinebat, qui nostram sibi Carnem aduniverat, & ita nobis arctissimo vinculo conjunct­us, & [...], quae erant nostra feeit sua. And again, Quid mirum si in nostra persona constitutus, nostram carnem indutus, &c. Montacut. Origen. Ecclesiast. The Antient speak to the same purpose. Leo. Serm. 17. Ideo se humanae infirmitati virtus divina conservit, ut dum Deus sua facit esse quae nostra sunt, nostra faceret esse quae sua sunt. And also Sermo. 16. Caput nostrum Dominus Jesus Christus omnia in se corporis sui membra transformans, quod olim in Psalmo eructaverat, id in supplicio cru­cis sub Redemptorum suorum voce clamavit. And so speaks Augustine to the same purpose, Epist. 120. Ad Honoratum; Audimus vocem corporis, ex ore capitis; Ec­clesia in illo patiebatur, &c. We hear the voice of the Body from the mouth of the Head. The Church suffered in him, when he suffered for the Church; as he suffers in the Church, when the Church suffereth for him. For as we have heard the voice of the Church in Christ's suffering, My God, my Lord, why hast thou forsaken me? Look upon me; So we have heard the voice of Christ in the Church-suffering, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? But we may yet look a little backward and far­ther into the sense of the Antient Church herein. Christus, saith Iraeneus, om­nes Gentes exinde ab Adam dispersas, & Generationem hominum insemet ipso recapitu­latus est; unde a Paulo Typus futuri dictus est ipse Adam; lib. 3. cap. 33. And again; Recapitulans universum hominum genus in se ab initio usque ad finem, recapi­tulatus est & mort [...]m ejus. In this of Recapitulation, there is no doubt but he had respect unto the [...], mentioned, Eph. 1. 10. And, it may be, this was that which Origen intended oenigmatically, by saying, the Soul of the first Adam was the Soul of Christ, as it was charged on him. And Cyprian, Ep. 63. on bearing about the Administration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; Nos omnes portabat Christus; qui & peccata nostra portabat. He bare us, or suffer­ed in our Person, when he bare our sins. Whence Athanasius affirms of the Voice he used on the Cross; [...] We suffered in him. Eusebius speaks many things to this pur­pose. Demonstrat. Evangel. lib. 1. cap. 1. Expounding those words of the Psal­mist, Heal my Soul, for, or, as he would read them, if, I have sinned against thee; and applying them unto our Saviour in his Sufferings; He saith thus, [...], &c. because he took of our sins to himself; communicated our sins to himself; making them his own; for so adds, [...], &c. making our sins his own. And because in his following words he fully expresseth what I design to prove, I shall transcribe them at large’ (which the Doctor does, and thus translates)—‘How then did he make our sins to be his own, and how did he bear our Iniquityes? Is it not from thence, that we are said to be his body, as the Apostle speaks, you are the body, of Christ, and members, for your part, or of one another. And as when one member suffer­ers, all the members do suffer; So the many members, sining and suffering, [Page] He according unto the Laws of sympathy in the same body (seeing that be­ing the Word of God, he would take the form of a servant, and be joined unto the common habitation of us all (in the same nature) took the Sorrows [...]r labours of the suffering members on him, and made all their Iniquityes his own, and according to the Laws of humanity (in the same body,) bare our sorrow and labour for us. And the Lamb of God did not only these things for us, but he under went torments, and was punished for us; That which he was no wayes exposed unto for himself, but we were so by the multitude of our sins; And thereby he became the cause of the pardon of our sins; Namely because he underwent Death, Stripes, Reproaches, translating the thing which we had deserved unto himself; And was made a Curse for us, taking unto himself the Curse that was due to us; For what was he, but (a substitute for us) a price of Redemption for our Souls? In our person therefore the Oracles speak,—whilst freely uniting himself unto us, and as unto himself, and making our sins or passions his own, I have said, Lord be mer­cifull unto me, heal my Soul, for I have sinned against thee.’

‘That our sins were transferred unto Christ and made his, that thereon he underwent the punishment that was due unto us for them; And the ground hereof, whereunto it's Equity is resolved, is the Ʋnion between him and us, is fully decleared in this Discourse. So saith the Learned and Pathetical Author of the Homilies on Mat. 5. In the works of Chrysostome, Hom 54. Which is the last of them. In carne sua omnem carnem suscepit, crucifixus, omnem carnem crucifix­it in se. He speaks of the Church. So they speak often others of them; That he bear us, that he took us with him on the cross, that we were all crucifyed in him; as Prosper; He is not saved by the cross of Christ, who is not crucifyed in Christ. Resp. ad cap. Gal. cap. 9.’

‘But our Author tells us, p. 36, 37. That,—If the Mediatorial Righteous­ness be subjectively in us, we must grant all those absurdities, which the Enemies of Gospel-Imputation object, and the Orthodox deny. If it be in us, then we may be as truly intercessors as Christ, and in the same sense, viz. In the vertue of merits made personally ours; We have a righteousness in us which is able to save the world, and capable of being imputed to their Justi­fication; We need no forgiveness, but are saved by the Covenant of works, as claiming life by it's sanction immediately, which is inconsistent with all remission; Yea the imputation of Christ's Righteousness, which did no way consist in forgiveness, but in a full satisfaction. This would denominate us our own Saviours from the moment we were Justisyed, if not before. Whereas we still need pardon, and continue Justifyed by the efficacy of the righteous­ness of another; and must look to Christ as the only subject of it all our dayes. Our Justifyed state is a continuance of the blessed effects of the Righteousness of Christ, from first to last. That cause is still productive of supplies, as our guilt returns, or necessityes and capacityes renew or grow: But o [...]r Redemption is ever in Christ, Rom. 3. 24. That we are as Righteous as Christ is not a pro­per or safe speech. It's true and indeed, our pardon and acceptance is firm and lasting, and will no more fail us, than the Righteousness of Christ will fail; [Page] it being the meritorious cause and security thereof, and the benefits, can abate to none, who answer the Gospel-rule of it's Application.’

What sayes Dr. O. To this? We have heard him pretty fairly joining issues with Dr. Cr. Let us see how he accords with our Author-He cites an ob­jection ‘That if the Righteousness of Christ be made ours, we may be said to be Savi­ours of the world as he was, or to save others, as he did. For he was so and did so by his Righteousness, and no otherwise- A meer Sophistical Dr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 307. cavil, Unto which amongst others he returns this Answer—The Apostle declares, as we shall prove afterwards, that as Adam's actual sin is imputed unto us unto condemnation, so is the Obedience of Christ imputed unto us, to the Justification of life.Dr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 309. But Adam's sin is not so imputed unto any, persons, as that he should then and thereby be the cause of sin and condemnation unto all other persons in the world; But only that he himself should become Guilty before God thereon. And so is it on the other side. And as we are made Guilty by Adam's actual sin, which is not inherent in us but only im­puted unto us; So are we made righteous by the Righteousness of Christ which is not inherent in us, but only imputed unto us. And with it, not for himself but for us.’

Again,—‘In this Imputation, the thing it self is first imputed unto us, and not any of the effects of it, but they are made ours by vertue of that im­putation. To say that the Righteousness of Christ, that is, his Obedience and sufferings are imputed unto us only as their effects, is to say that we have the benefit of them, and no more; But imputation it self is denyed. So say the So­cinians, but they knew well enough, and ingeniously grant, that they over­throw all true real imputation thereby.’ Nec enim ut per Christi Justitiam Justificemur, opus est ut illius Justitia, nostra fiat Justitia; Dr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 243. 244, 245 sed sufficit ut Christi Justitia sit causa nostrae; Justificationis; et hactenus possumus tibi concedere, Christi Justitiam esse nostram Justitiam, quatenus nostrum in bonum Justitiamque redundat; verum tu proprie nostram, id est, nobis attribu­tam ascriptamque intelligis, saith Schlictingius; Disp. pro Socin. ad Meisner. p 250. And ‘it is not pleasing to see some among our selves with so great confidence take up the sense and words of these men in their Disputations against the Protestant Doctrine in this cause, that is, the Doctrine of the Church of England.’

‘That the Righteousness of Christ is imputed unto us, as unto its effects, hath this sound sense in it; Namely, that the effects of it are made ours, by reason of that imputation. It is so imputed, so reckoned unto us of God, as that he really communicates all the effects of it unto us. 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 cannot be said properly to be imputed unto 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. And therefore the Socinians who expresly oppose the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, and plead for a participation of it's effects or benefits only, do wisely [Page] deny any such kind of Righteousness of Christ, namely, of satisfaction and me­rit (or that the Righteousness of Christ as wrought by him, was either satis­factory or meritorious) as alone may be imputed unto us. For it will readily be granted, that what alone they allow the Righteousness of Christ to con­sist in, cannot be imputed unto us, whatever benefit we may have by it. But I do not understand how those who grant the Righteousness of Christ to consist prin­cipally in his satisfaction for us, or in our stead, can conceive of an Imputation of the effects thereof unto us, without an imputation of the thing it self. See­ing it is for that as made ours, that we partake of the benefits of it. But from the Description of Imputation and the Instances of it, it appeareth that there can be no Imputation of any thing, unless the thing it self be imputed, nor any participation of the Effects of any thing, but what is grounded on the Im­putation of the thing it self. Wherefore in our particular case, no Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ is allowed, unless we grant it self to be imput­ed; Nor can we have any Partitipation of the effects of it, but on the suppo­sition and foundation of that Imputation. The impertinent Cavils that some of late have collected from the Papists and Socinians, that if it be so, then are we as Righteous as Christ himself that we have redeemed the World, and satisfyed for the sins of others, that the pardon of sin is impossible, and Personal Righteousness need­less, shall afterwards be spoken to, so far as they deserve.’

‘All that we now aim to demonstrate, is only, that either the Righteousness of Christ it self is imputed unto us, or there is no Imputation in the matter of our Justification, which whether there be or no, is another Question after­wards to be spoken unto. For as was said, the effects of the Righteousness of Christ, cannot be said properly to be imputed unto us. For Instance, Pardon of sin is a great effect of the Righteousness of Christ. Our sins are pardoned on the account thereof God for Christ's sake forgiveth us all our sins. But the pardon of sin cannot be said to be imputed unto us, nor is so. Adoption, Justi­fication, Peace with God, all grace and Glory, are effects of the Righteous­ness of Christ. But that these things are not imputed unto us, nor can be so, is evident from their Nature. But we are made partakers of them all upon the account of the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ unto us, and no otherwise.’

Further our Author tells us in this chapter,—‘That this change of persons,’ (which indeed as we have heard is no more than a relative change, though he divert it from that to an inward physical one, meerly to turn aside sinners from expecting a Righteousness that way, that it) ‘is impossible, ungrounded and absurd. p. 38. 39.’ We will see what Dr. O. Sayes to this. p. 363. 364, 365. &c.—‘The things that are usually objected and vehemently urged against the Imputation of the Obedience of Christ unto our Justi­fication, may be reduced unto three heads. 1. It is pleaded im­possible Dr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 363. 364. on this single ground;’ Namely, That the obedience of Christ unto the Law was due from him on his own account, and performed by him for himself, as a man made under the Law. ‘Now what was ne­cessary unto himself, and done for himself, cannot be said to be done for us, so as to be imputed unto us.’

‘2. It is pretended to be useless from hence, because all our sins of omission and commission being pardoned in our Justification, on the account of the death and satisfacti­on of Christ, we are thereby made compleatly righteous; so as that there is not the least necessity for, or use of the Imputation of the Obedience of Christ unto us.’

‘3. Pernitious also they say it is, as that which takes away the necessity of our own personal obedience, introducing Antinomianism, Libertinism, and all manner of evils.’

‘For this last part of the charge, I refer it unto its proper place: For altho' it be urged by some against this part of the Doctrine of Justification in a peculiar manner, yet is it managed by others, against the whole of it. And although we should grant, that the Obedience of Christ unto the Law, is not imputed unto us unto our Justification, yet shall we not be freed from distur­bance by this false accusation; unless we will renounce the whole of the sa­tisfaction and merit of Christ also: And we intend not to purchase our peace with the whole World at so dear a rate. Wherefore I shall, in its proper place, give this part of the Charge its due consideration, as it reflects on the whole Doctrine of Justification, and all the causes thereof, which we believe and profess. As for the clearing of these three Heads, I shall refer the Rea­der to the place it self.’

Having thus stated the Dr's Judgment in this Fundamental Article of our Faith; we may the more clearly see into the impudent Treachery of our Au­thor, in what he quotes of him: And, herein, I positively, though I hope in a Christian way, give him the Challenge, together with the Assistances of all his present, as well as future Subscribers; to shew me, that there is the least dis­sent, as to matter and substance (whatever difference, as to manner of speak­ing, may be) betwixt Dr. O. Elders of the Savoy, Assemhlies, and Dr. Crisp, as to the Doctrine of Justification; nay, that they do, not all of them, conjoint­ly Argue and Attest for that very same fundamental truth, for the everting and undermining of which it is, that our Author cites them one against the other. I say it again, and that in the Name of the Lord of Hosts, the God of the Armies of Is­rael whom thi [...] Creature hath defied, that I challenge him and them to the same.

Now, that it is not a bare or forced charge against our Author (viz. that he is guilty herein of an impudent Treachery in his Quotation of the Dr, in this, as well as others of his Chapters.) See him, p 42, 43 where you will find him, either distending a Sentence beyond its proper and circumscribed li­mits; or distorting it from its peculiar and relative dependance upon what either precedes or follows, and thereby wholly unbowelling the same, of that genuine matter, form and energy for which it is designed by its Author. As in reference to the Chapter in hand, and therein a change of persons, as you heard of before; He quotes the Dr.—To say, That we are as righteous as Christ, ‘is to make a comparison between the Personal Righteousness of Christ, and our Personal Righteousness, if the comparisonDr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 509, 510. be of things of the same kind.’ (Mark this Reader) ‘But this is foolish and impious. For notwithstanding all our per­sonal Righteosness, we are sinful, he knew no sin. And if the comparison be be­tween Christ's Personal inherent Righteousness, and Righteousness in us, [Page] inhaesion and imputation, being things of divers kinds, thus its fond, and of no consequence. Christ was actively Righteous, we are passively so.’ Here our Author, like a Bog-trotter, leaves us in the Quagmire of an, &c. For, says the Dr. ‘When our sin was imputed unto him, he did not thereby become a sinner, as we are, actively and inherently a sinner, but passively only, and in God's esti­mation. As he was made sin, yet knew no sin; so we are made Righteous, yet are sinful in our selves.’ Our Author having slily duck't his head, for the better securing of his Arminian Brains, under his Minatory Wave, by a regardless Manu-mission of it; gives us, as he thinks, a very serviceable Quotation, in his next Emergency for the interest of his cause.—‘The Righteousness of Christ, as it was his personally, was the Righteousness of the Son of God; in which respect, it had in its self, an infinite perfection and value: But it is im­puted unto us, only with respect unto our personal want, not as it was satis­factory for all; (This Quotation is meerly to divert from the matter in hand;) but, as our Souls stand in need of it. (But, Wherefore is this spoken, and to whom? See what lineally follows, and that in one breath) and are made partakers of it. There is therefore no ground for any such compa­rison.’—As unto what is added by Bellarmine (whom our Author can quietly let pass and undisturbed, as knowing whose Livery he wears, and what man­ner of Communication the Man is of, so he can but sufficiently Avenge him­self on Dr. Crisp, I mean his Doctrine) ‘that we may hereon be said to be Redeemers and Saviours of the World, the absurdity of the assertion falls upon himself (just as it does upon our Author) we are not concerned in it. For he affirms directly, Lib. 1. de purgator. cap. 14. That a Man may be rightly called his own Redeemer and Saviour, which he endeavours to prove from Dan. 4 [...] And some of his Church affirms, That the Saints may be called, The Redeem­ers of others, though improperly.’ But we are not concerned in these things, seeing (Now our Author appears upon the Stage again) from the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ; ‘it follows only, that those unto whom it is imputed, are Redeemed and Saved not at all; they are Redeemers and Saviours.’ (But passes by what follows) ‘It belongs also unto the Vindication of this Testimony, so shew the vanity of his Seventh Argument in the same case, be­cause that also is made use of by some among our selves, and it is this (which is the same with what our Author urges unto the same use and end, and what we have in part once cited before.) If by the Righteousness of Christ imputed un­to us, we may be truly said to be righteous, and the Sons of God, then may Christ, by the imputation of our unrighteousnesness, be said to be a sinner, and the child of the Devil.’

Further,—‘Imputation is not the Transmission, or Transfusion of the Righ­teousness of another (viz of Christ) into them that are to be justified, that they should become perfectly and inherentlyThis is quoted by D. W. out of Dr. Owen, p. 242. Righteous thereby. For it is impossible that the Righteous­ness of one should be transfused into another, to become his subjectivel [...] and inherently. (Omitting what inherently introduces this; as)—1. Negatively; 1. It is not a judging or esteeming of them to be Righte­ous, who truly and really are not so. (This is a nicking blow.) Such a [Page 58] judgment is not reducible unto any of the grounds of the Imputation before­mentioned. It hath the nature of that which is ex Injuria, or a false charge, only it differs materially from it. For that re­spectsDr. Owens Treat. of Justif. p. 242, 243 evil, this that which is good. And therefore the clamour of the Papists and others, are meer effects of Ignorance and Malice, wherein they cry out ad ravim, that we affirm God to esteem them to be righteous, who are wicked, sinful and polluted: But this falls heavily on them who maintain, That we are Justified before God by our own Inherent Righteousness; For then a Man is Judged Righteous, who indeed is not so. For he who is not perfectly Righteous, cannot be Righteous, in the sight of God, unto Justification.’ (It's no wonder our Author let these Throat-cut­ting Arguments unobserved fly over his head.) 2. ‘It is not a naked Pronun­ciation, or Declaration of any one to be righteous, without a just and suffici­ent foundation for the Judgment of God declared therein. God declares no Man to be righteous, but he who is so; the whole Question being, How he comes so to be?’ (Now, betwixt this of a Negative, and what the Dr declares as a Positive Imputation, does our Author's Citation lie.) ‘Wherefore, 2. Po­sitively; This Imputation is an Act of God, ex merâ Gratiâ, of his meer Love and Grace, whereby, on the Consideration of the Mediation of Christ, he makes an ef­fectuall grant and donation, of a true, real, perfect Righteousness, even that of Christ himself, unto all that do believe, and accounting it as theirs, on his own gracious Act, both absolves them from sin, and granteth them Right and Title unto eternal Life.’ He further tells us, that the Dr. adds—‘That the Righteousness of Christ is im­puted unto us, as unto its effects, hath this sound sense, namely, that the effects of it are made ours, by reason of that Imputa­tion.Dr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 243. It is so imputed, so reckoned unto us of God, as that he really communicates all the effects of it unto us. But neither tells us what intervenes with, and especially what falls in upon the very back of the same; which is (though recited by us before.) But to say, The Righteousness of Christ is not imputed unto us, only its effects are so, is really to overthrow all Imputation. He bids us also see, p. 310, 311. unto which I also refer the Reader, as to the Merits of the cause in hand.—And there­upon concludes, What can be spoken more oppositely to Dr. Crisp? Where­as he should have said,—What could be managed with more deceitfulness and treachery against him, than I D. W. have done?—Sed male dum recitas, incipit esse tuus.’

I shall put an end to this Testimony of Dr. Owen's with what he represents to Mr. Baxter, upon his charging him with Antinomianism, as our Author does Dr. Crisp, and that as a Transcript of his Judgment in Two Socinian Points, which I take to be (and am satisfied every Judicious Reader will find it so) that which is the full scope and designed end of our Author in this his Treatise: That,

1. ‘Justifying Faith, or that Faith whereby we are justified, is our receiv­ing of Christ as our Lord and Saviour, trusting in him, andDr. Owen against Biddle, in his Post­script against Mr. Baxter, p. 11. yielding obedience to him.’

[Page 59]2. ‘Faith in Justifying is not to be considered as an hand, whereby we lay hold on the Righteousness of another, or asIbid. p. 12. an Instrument, as though Righteousness were provided for us, and tendred unto us, which would overthrow all necessity of being Righ­teous in our selves.’

3. ‘Nor yet doth Faith, Repentance, or Obedience, procure our Justification, or is the efficient, or meritorious cause there­of.’ Ibid. pag. 12.

4. ‘But the true use of our Faith (and Repentance) as to our Justification before God, is, that they are the causa sine qua Ibid. pag. 13. non, or the condition whereby, according to the appointment of God, we come to be justified; and so is imputed to us.’

5. ‘That our Justification is our Absolution from the guilt of sin, and free­dom from obnoxiousness unto Punishment for it, and no­thing else. Our Regeneration is the Condition of our Ab­solution,Ibid. pag. 14. and in them both, in several respects, is our Righte­ousness.’

6. ‘That the way whereby we come to obtain this Absolution, is this; Je­sus Christ the only Son of God, being sent by him to reveal his Love and Grace unto lost sinful Mankind, in that work yield­ingIbid. p. 15, 16. obedience unto God, even unto death, was, for a reward of that obedience, exalted, and had Divine Authority over them for whom he died, committed to him, to pardon and save them, which accordingly he doth, upon the performance of the Condition of Faith and Obedience by him prescribed to them, at once effecting an universal conditional application to them: actually justifying every individual upon the performance of the condition.’

7. ‘That as to good works, and their place in this business, Paul speaks of the perfect Works of the Law, and legal manner of justify­ing, which leave no place for Grace or pardon: James, of Gos­pel-worksIbid. p. 16. of new Obedience, which leave place for both.’

8. ‘That the denial of our Faith and Obedience to be the condition of our justification, or the asserting that we are justified by the obedience of Christ imputed to us is the ready way to overthrowIbid. p. 17. all obedience, and drive all Holiness and Righteousness out of the World.’

9. ‘That as the beginning, so the continuance of our Justification, depends on the condition of our Faith, Repentance, and obedience, which are not fruits consequent of it; but conditions antecedentIbid. p. 17. to it. Socin. Thes. de justificat p. 18. Fragmenta de justificat. p. 113. and therefore in the first place we are to be sollicitous about what is within us, about our Sanctification, before our Absolution or Justification.’

10. ‘That as to the death of Christ, our sins were the impulsive cause of it, and it was undergone for the forgiveness of sins, and occa­sioned by them only, and is, in some sense, the condition of ourIbid. pag. 18. forgiveness.’

2. ‘That Absolution and Pardon of sin, are by no means theIbid. pag. 18. immediate effects of the Death of Christ.’

Here, Reader, is the Testimony of an old deceased, and long since Glorified Puritan H. Burton's Christian Bulwark, that I would subjoyn; as hoping, that, though it may seem somewhat prolix, yet, that the mat­ter thereof may make way for it's kind and welcome reception, with all those who truly know what sin and grace is, and how Christ and a Sinner become Correlates, according to the secret of an Eternal Covenant. ‘Christ standing before Pilate to be judged, as he took the purity of our Nature in his Concep­tion, so now he put on the Impurity of our guilty Persons in his condemna­tion. Behold here a great Mystery! the Son of God, not only in our inno­cent Nature by Assumption, but in our Guilty Person by Imputation, stands before Pilate the Judge to be Sentenced by him. Why? What if Christ had been killed by any of the sundry Attempts of the Malicious Jews, made up­on his Person; as by casting him head-long down the steep Rock, as once they made sure account of him, Luk. 4. 29. When they had him in the midst of them, yea and had laid hands on him, leading him to the brow of the Hill? No, it was not possible, in regard of the purpose of God's Wis­dom and Justice, destinating his Son to such a Death as he must die, as Luk. 24. 26. That Christ could be so put to death by all the power and malice of Hell it self. For God's Wisdom so disposed, that the death of his Son should be such, as might be most effectual to satisfie and appease his Fathers Wrath, and give a Believer sure confidence in the day of Judgment, as S. John speaks, 1 John 2. 28. Otherwise, if it had been so, that Christ had been kil­led in any such Tumultuous manner, or in Hugger-mugger, and not by a legal and judicial proceeding against him, How had his death secured us from the terror of God's Tribunal? Christ must die; but he must be first senten­ced, and judged to die by a lawful Judge: And such was Pilate; For how­soever Pilate was a Man, and so subject to be led away with Passion and Af­fection, which, as a Bribe, doth blind the eyes even of the wise, and perver­teth the ways of Judgment; yet a lawful Judge he was, deputed and ap­pointed for that Province by Caesar; yea, by a greater than Caesar, even by God himself, who is the Judge of all the World. Therefore Jehoshaphat, in his Charge to the Judges, whom he sent, said, 2 Chron. 19. 6. Take heed what you do, for ye Judge not for Man; but for the Lord, who is with you in the Judg­ment. And such is the judgment and sentence, which proceedeth from the mouth of an earthly Judge, as that it is to be taken and received as the Judg­ment and Sentence of God himself: As the Wise man speaks from the mouth of the Holy Ghost—Many seek the Ruler's favour; but every Man's judgment cometh from the Lord, Prov. 29. 26. Every Man's judgment? Yes, every Man's judgment; nay more, (which is also there implyed) Every judgment what­soever it be, whether true or false, right or wrong, it proceedeth (Shall I say from the Lord? Yes,) from the Lord. Every Man's Judgment cometh from the Lord. And yet many Men complain, that their cause is unjustly censur'd, and sentenc'd by the Judge: But God is just: And shall not he, [Page 61] the Judge of all the World, do right? Doubtless he is most Just, and even that Judgment, which seemeth to us most unjust, coming from an earthly Judge; Yet the same Judgement coming from God is most Just. We will use no other instance, but that Judgment of Pilate, passed upon the Lord Jesus Christ the Innocent Lamb of God stands arraigned at the bar of Pilate's Jugdment seat: Many accusations are brought against him, but without any proof at all. And the Judge must go secundum allegata et probata, according to the allegations and proofs, or else, aequum licet statuerit, haud aequus fuit: Though he gives a Just sentence, yet himself is unjust. Well, the Jews with much vehement of mortal malice, accusing Christ before Pilate, but all without proof. Mat. 27. 18. v. 24. Pilate knowing that of envy the Jews had de­livered him to be condemned, acquits Christ as an Iunocent person, and that solemn­ly before them all: But the Jews at length prevailing with their wicked im­portunities, Pilate contra probata, passeth and pronounceth the sentence of Con­demnation upon Christ, that he should dye, a most wicked and unjust sentence, if we consider the person of the Judge, Pilate, a man swayed by humane affections (and especially fear of men, the bane of many a good cause) who against his own conscience, pronounced Christ guilty and worthy of death, whom he knew to be no other, but a most innocent person. But now, take me this Judgment as proceeding from the tribunal of God, and we shall see it to be most Just: For in or with Pilate, God sits upon the tribunal to Judge his own son: But God and Pilate pass the same sentence with a most different res­pect upon Christ. For Christ here sustains a two fold person; His own which only Pilate looked upon, not knowing any other; And so Pilates sentence of death was most unjust: But Christ bare another person upon him, to wit, our sinfull person; Which God looking upon, and finding now in our stead, a guilty person by the Imputation of our sins, being our Surety; He passeth the same sentence of death upon him, that Pilate did, and yet God's sentence is most Just. Yea but God the Judge must go also, secundum allegata et probata, according to due allegations and true proofs: Yea they were most false: True; But consider now as he stood in our person, so all the allegations and accusations brought against him were most true. Mat. 27. 13, 14. Mat. 15. 3 4, 5. In which respect Christ at the hearing of them was silent; As he that wanted his wedding garment, was speechless, because Christ knew that he stood there in our person; Against whom, what accusation of sin can be pro­duced, but may easily be proved? Christ was accused of two main impieties; Against God, and aginst the King and the people; As a perverter, and a traitour, Luk. 22. 70, 71. Ch. 23. 2. Jo. 19. 12. All this was true; For sustain­ing our Person, standing as our Surety, and undertaking to discharge all our debts, what debt was so great, what sin so grievous, that he now stood not charged withall and was not culpable of? This made him to be numbred among Transgressors, not common offenders, but transgressors, among Criminals, yea Capital malefactors: And for this very reason even Barabbas a seditious murderer is preferred before him; if Christ had not thus stood in our stead, been Judged and condemned in our persons, he had never saved the theif up­on [Page 62] the cross, and therefore as St. Ambrose saith, nemo est, qui possit e [...]ludi, quando receptus est latro. Ambros. In Psal. com. There is none that can be shut out, when the theif is let in; And standing in our stead, if he had not been formally and legally Judged, and so condemn'd, we should never have been able to have stood before God's Judgment seat. But now Christ being cast and condemn'd by a lawfull Judge, ordained and appointed of God; So that this Judgment was not man's Judgement, but God's: That gives a supersedeas, and a quietus est, to all true believers, and penitent sinners that they shall most assuredly stand in­nocent and righteous before God's Judgment seat, seeing their sins are already absolutely Judged and condemned; For as Christ was legally condemned in our person; So shall we be before God's tribunal acquitted and absolved, as Just and righteous in his person, Rom: 8. 33, 34 for, who shall now lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect; It is God that Justifyeth: Who shall condemn? It is Christ that dyed. Osingular unspeakable comfort to all true believers! The debt is discharged, and we are free; Christ is Judged, and we acquitted; He is condemned, and we are absolved; His chastisement is our peace; His stripes our healing; So that now being Justifyed by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. Now we may with comfort and confidence, Rom 5. 9. 1. Thess 1. 10. Wait for the Son of God from heaven, whom God raised from the dead, even Jesus, which hath delivered us from the wrath to come; As saith the Apostle; And all this, for that was Christ in his own person innocent, but in ours guilty, was Judged and condemned, even by God's own Judgment; Though by the mouth of a mortal man; Yea an unjust, though a lawful Judge. It is not therefore for nothing, that in our Creed we say, he suffered under Pontius Pilate: O happy suffering under Pontius Pilate! But why under Pontius Pilate! How comes Pontius Pilate in our Christian Creed? Surely not for any honour due to his name, or to his person; But in memory of his office and calling, as he was a Judge, who passed sentence on the Lord Jesus Christ▪ This very Article, where Pontius Pilate is mentioned, is a strong Argument to persuade me, that those who compiled this Creed, called the Apostles Creed, did it by the special instinct of the holy Ghost; And in this very Article doth this Creed excel all other Creeds, sith it, of all the rest, expresseth the manner of Christ's condemnation, which being done by Pontius Pilate the Judge, is the very life and Soul of our Justifi­cation. I have dwelt the longer upon this point, as being a mystery of rare and singular use to the Church of God. I confess I have looked into sundry Ca­techists and Expositours upon the Creed, but I have not had the hap to meet with any to lead me thus to consider of this point of Christ's suffering under Pontius Pilate, as a lawful Judge. Which seemeth to my poor Judgment to be as a secure road and safe harbour, for all heavenly Merchants to Anchor in; although it be easy at the first sight to take it rather as an hystory, than as a mystery.’

Thus thou hast, Reader, laid before thee the clear testimonies of several of the faithfull spies of our Israel, the genuine Grapes of the Land of pro­mise, as a fruit of their faith, Experience and labour of Soul; In the room [Page 63] whereof, our Author would present us with the fair Apples of Sodom, lovely to the reasonings of a carnal foolish heart; but by them they are thorowly weigh'd and handled, thou wilt find them mouldring to dust, and lighter than vanity it self, Isa. 44. 20. He feedeth on ashes; a deceived heart hath turned himself a­side, that he cannot deliver his Soul, nor say, Is there not a Lie in my right hand. So much for this.

Now, as to the Elders at the Savoy, and the Assembly of Divines, who are as candidly dealt with by our Author, as Dr. Owen hath been, I shall contract my self (having, in what goe, before, exceeded my designed bounds) to two or three of their testimonies, as on which the very Hinge of the Controversie does hang, and summarily comprehend, in the main, what Dr. Crisp maintains, and what our Author would covertly subvert them in, and by what he cites of them.

Elders, ch. 3. a 5. ‘Those of Mankind that are predestinated unto life; God, before the foundation of the World was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his meer Free-grace and love, without any fore-sight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereunto, and all to the Praise of his glorious Grace.’

Chap. 11. a. 1. ‘Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifi­eth, 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; nor by imputing faith it self the act of believing, or any other Evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole Law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole Righteousness, they receiving and resting on him and his Righteousness by Faith; which Faith they have not of themselves, it is the Gift of God.’

A. 3. ‘Christ by his obedience and death did fully discharge the Debt of all those that are justified, and did, by the sacrifice of himself, in the blood of his Cross, undergoing in their stead, the penalty due unto them, make a proper, real and full Satisfaction to God's Justice in their behalf: yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their Justification is only of Free­grace, that both the Exact Justice and Rich Grace of God might be glorified in the Justification of sinners.’

‘Chap. 8. a. 4. This Office the Lord Jesus Christ did most willingly under­take, which that he might discharge, he was made under the Law, and did per­fectly fulfil it, and underwent the punishment due to us, which we should have born and suffered, being made sin, and a curse for us, enduring most grievous tor­ments immediately from God in his Soul, and most painful sufferings in his body, was Crucified, and Died, was Buried, and remained under the power of Death, yet saw no corruption; on the third day he rose from the Dead with the same Body, in which he suffered, with which also he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth at the Right-hand of the Father, making Intercession, and shall [...]’

A. 5. ‘The Lord Jesus, by his perfect Obedience and Sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satis­fied the Justice of God, and purchased not only Reconciliation, but an Everlast­ing Inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him.’

Assembly, p. 41. a. 4. ‘This Office the Lord Jesus did most willingly under­take, which, that he might discharge, he was made under the Law, and did perfectly fulfil it, endured most grievous torments immediately in his Soul, and most painful sufferings in his Body, was Crucified and Died, was Buried, and remained under the power of Death; yet saw no Corruption; on the Third Day he arose from the Dead, with the same Body in which he Suffered, with which also he As­cended into Heaven, and there sitteth at the Right hand of his Father, making Intercession, and shall return to Judge Men and Angels at the end of the World.’

P. 43. a. 5. ‘The Lord Jesus, by his perfect Obedience, and Sacrifice of himself, which he, through the Eternal Spirit, once offered up unto 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 whom the Father hath given unto him.’

P. 53. a. 1. ‘Those whom God effectually Calleth, he also freely Justifieth, 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; nor by imputing Faith it self the act of believing, or any other Evangelical Obedience to them, as their Righteousness; but by imputing the Obedience and Satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his Righteousness by Faith; which Faith they have, not of themselves, it is the Gift of God.’

P. 5. a. 3. ‘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 Father's Justice in their behalf; yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them; and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them; their Justification is only of Free-grace, that both the exact Justice, and rich Grace of God, might be glori­fied in the Justification of sinners.’

Now, had our Author written a Piece clearly and distinctly expressive of his own Judgment in Divinity, though as large and as rotten as Methodus Theologiae is, he would probably have left more room for pity and compassion in the hearts of his Readers towards him, than I fear he hath done in this his Under­taking; for though a person may be our enemy in never so fundamental a Truth, yet honesty and plainness therein is that, which sets the bowels on work towards, after, and for such a one, Rom. 10. 2, 3, 4. comp. ch. 9 1, 2, 3. Act. 12. from v. 16. to v▪ 33. ch. 14. from v. 11 to v. 18. comp. with ch. 13. from v. 6. to v. 11. ch. 8. 21. comy. ch. 10. 4, 5. together with ch. 11. 13, 14. But for any one, under a pretence of some uncouth expressions, which indeed are not so in their relative consideration, to set Authors by the eares, in either mis-rendring, or mis-applying of them, to subvert that on the one hand, and bring in that [Page 65] on the other, for which they are joyntly urged to uphold and oppose, is not only absolutely unjustifiable, but highly, highly intolerable.

As to the fourth and last General Head, viz.

IV. THe Fourth and last general head, is, Our Author's Explication of those Texts which mainly respect the matter in hand. And herein, though I shall more peculiarly confine my self to that of—PHIL. 3. 9. And that by reciting out of a Piece, called A Treatise of one, who hath of late been a Subscriber to Mr. D. W's. Treat. Antisozzo, what is said there in defence of the same; which place in­deed hath often proved the Criterion of Persons and Things; yet I shall note by the way one or two more Texts at most, and if our Author take it not ill, subjoin Dr. Owen's Sentiment of them, (of whom he seems to have a Reverential Fond­ness) unto his own Judgment of the same, and so leave the Reader to Diju­dicate.

The first Text is, that of Heb 8. 10, 12. For this is the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those dayes, saith the Lord; I will put my Laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a People. Vers. 12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Which I take to be pretty well and full explained, Psal. 103. 3. Psal. 130. 3, 4. Who forgiveth all thine iniqui­ties; who healeth all thy diseases. If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee that thou mayest be feared. But it seems our Author is otherwise minded, as we shall find: In that his Expli­cation of the place, does necessarily infer a [wherefore] in stead of a [for] v. 12. Wherein his Grammar, as well as Logick, are gone a Wool-gather­ing together after his Divinity: for this he tells us, p. 56, 57. I shall wholly Transcribe him, as to his matter, least he suggest that I wrong him—‘1. Whom is this Covenant made with? It's with the House of Judah and Israel; not the Men in present being, but Men to be hereafter. It's after those dayes I will make it; so that it was after the Mosaick Covenant was to expire, v. 32. And it could not be the only Covenant of Grace, for that had its being from the Fall, (or rather its discovery, for its being is from Eternity) and the sincere Is­raelites did not lose the advantages of it by the Mosaick Dispensation, as the A­postle argues, Gal. 3 17. The point before us, is to know, who this Israel and Judah be. 1. If it terminate on the natural Jews, it's the strongest Text for the conversion of the People, and describes the extent of it, viz. to all; and the manner of it, viz. by an immediate influence for the most part; and for­giving their iniquities, refers to their sin, in Crucifying Christ, for which that blindness came upon them, that is here removed: If you take it in this sense, yet here is a Law written in the heart, which includes faith, in order to God's being their God, and the remission of their sins.—2. If true Belie­vers, or they are inwardly Israelites are meant, as Rom. 2. 29. Then 'tis plain that [Page 66] there is faith in all such, who are parties, with whom God makes this Co­venant; They are the children of Abraham by faith. Gal. 3. 7. And no unbelievers are Israel. In this Notion: If you take it thus, the text imports, preseverance, great sanctification, and high improvements in holiness and knowledge, great near­ness to and amity with God, &c. As the benefits secured and reserved for the new Testament-times, and all these to Multitudes—2. It cannot be inferred from this scheme of the New—Covenant, that (as the Dr. would have it) God doth not require any duty as the Condition of the benefits which he pro­miseth to give, For here's God's Law written in the heart before our rela­tion to him as his people, or the pardon of sins; And though this text include the effects and materials of the Covenant, yet it doth not describe the whole form of the Covenant, for in other places God requires the new heart as a Condition of life. Ezek. 18. 31. Jer. 7. 28. One would think, that, that in the Hebrew, and whence it is quoted doth rather include the nature as well as form of the Covenant of grace, than the two forecited texts?’

Now, whether the Dr. is more his Colleague in the office of an Interpreter, than in his testimony, wherein he would force him to witness for him against Dr. Crisp, what follows will discover.

‘This is the great fundamental promise and grace of the new Covenant, for though it be last expressed, yet in order of nature it precedethDr. Owen on the place. the other mercies and priviledges mentioned, and is the foun­dation of the Collation or Communication of them unto us. This is the Causal [...], whereby the Apostle rendereth [...] in the Prophet, doth demonstrate. What I have spoken, saith the Lord, shall be accomplished, for I will be merciful, &c. Without which there could be no participation of the other things mentioned; Wherefore not only an addition of new grace and mer­cy is expressed in these words, but a reason also is rendred why or on what grounds he would bestow on them those other mercies. The house of Israel and Judah, with whom this covenant was made in the first place, and who are spoken of as representatives of all others who are taken into it, and who thereon become the Israel of God, were such as had broken and disanulled God's former Covenant by disobedience; Which my covenant they brake. Nor is there mention of any other qualification, whereby they should be prepared for or disposed unto an entrance into this new Covenant. Wherefore the first thing in order of nature, that is to be done unto this end; is the free pardon of sin: Without a supposition hereof, no other mercy can they be made partakers of. For whilst they continue under the guilt of sin, they are also under the curse; Wherefore a reason here is rendred, and that the only reason, why God will give unto them the other blessings mentioned, for I will be merciful, &c.’

‘Free and sovereign, undeserved grace, in the pardon of sin is the Original spring and foundation of all covenant mercies and blessings. Hereby and here­by alone is the glory of God and the safety of the Church provided for. And those who like not God's Govenant on these terms, as none by nature, will e­ternally fall short of the grace of it. Hereby all glorying and all boasting in our selves is excluded, which was that which God aimed at in the contrivance [Page 67] and establishment of this Covenant. Rom. 3. 27. 1 Cor. 1. 29, 30, 31. For this could not be, if the fundamental grace of it did depend on any condition or quallification in our selves, if we let go the free pardon of sin, without respect unto any thing in those that receive it, we renounce the Gospel; Pardon of sin is not merited by antecedent dutyes, but is the strongest obligation unto future dutyes. He that will not receive pardon, unless he can one way or other deserve it, or make himself meet for it, or pretends to have received it, and finds not himself obliged unto universal obedience by it, neither is, nor shall be partaker of it?’

Now let the Reader Judge, and that as to two things, 1. Who speaks most the Language of Dr. Crisp as to the substance and matter thereof, Dr. O. Or our pretty pert Author? 2. Whether (as we hinted before) of thofe texts cited by our Author, that of Heb. 8. 10. 12. Or these of Exek. 18. 31. And Jer 7. 23. Have more in them, as descriptive of the Covenant of grace, as to its form. Let him that runs read, though he assign it to the latter; And what that means we know full well enough. I would desire the Reader diligently to compare them.

The other Text which our Author manages to make way for his corrupt ex­plication, of, Phil. 3. 8, 9 is, Isa. 64, 6. p. 172. 173. ‘Ob. Doth not Israel. say, all our Righteousnesses are as filthy rags? Ans. But that is spoken of persons, and not of real holiness. It's the same, as Micha. 7. 4. The best of them▪ is a bryar. And Isa. 16. From the crown of the head to the sole of the foot we are putrifying sores. Corruption had invaded the very priests and the generality of the best profes­sors, who seemed the most righteous. And that the sense of the place refers to persons, see the verse before. Thou meetest him that rejoyceth and worketh righteousness &c. Behold thou art wrath, for we have sinned; q. d. Were we workers of righte­ousness, thou wouldest meet us, and we should rejoyce; But because we are not so, but have sinned, thou art wroth. See v. 7. There is none that calleth on thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold on thee, q. d. We are all remiss, the best of us are prayerless, see the 6th v. it self, we are all as unclean things; Our righteousness are as filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf. q. d. There's a general Apostacy and degeneracy among us. But allow that it were spoken of righte­ousness as a quality; Will it follow that because the dead shadow of righte­ousness, in so backsliding and defiled a people, was rags, that therefore the lively actings, of grace, through the influence of the Spirit, must be menstrous cloaths or rags. Dr. Owen speaking on Isa. 64. 6. It isDr. Owen of Justif. [...]. 324. true the Prophet doth in this place make a deep consession of the sins of the people; But yet withall he Joyns himself with them, and asserts the especial interest of those concernig whom he speaks by Adoption; That God was their Father, and they his people. ch. 63. 16. ch. 648, 9 And the righteousness of all that are the children of God are of the same kind; However they may differ in degrees and some of them may be more righteous than others: But it is all of it described to be such, as that we cannot, I think Justly, expect Justification in the sight of God, upon the account of it.’ Again upon the same text—‘It hath been often and well observed, that if a man, the best of men, were left to choose the best of his works tha [...] [Page 68] ever he performed, and thereon to enter into Judgment with God, if only under this notion, that he hath answer­edDr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 334. and fulfilled the Condition required of him, as unto his acceptation with God, it would be his wisest course (at least it would be so in the Judgment of Bellarmine) to renounce it, and be­take himself unto Grace and Mercy alone.’

Yet further. ‘But enough hath been spoken to manifest, that although this Righteousness of Believers be, on other accounts,Dr. Owen's Treat. of Justif. p. 334. like the fruits of the Vine, that glads the heart of God and Man, yet as unto our Justification before God, it is like the Wood of the Vine, a Pin is not to be taken from it to hang any weight of this cause upon.’

I shall add to this Mr. Caryl upon Job, ch. 27. p. 324.—‘As to the business of Justification, our righteousness is dross and dung, yea, all our Righteousnesses are as filthy rags, (Isa. 64. 6.) Not only are those righteous acts filthy which are done (as the Pharisees did theirs) for self-ends, or in hypocrisie; but there is a filthiness (as they are done by us in those righteous acts which are done to a right end, or in sincerity; and therefore the most righteous Person must not hold his righteousness, he must let it go Though I were righteous, (saith Job, ch. 9. 15.) yet would I not answer (in a legal way, for Justification in my self;) but I would make supplication to my Judge; that is, I would humble my self, and beg his pardon. And again (v. 21.) Though I were perfect, yet would I not know my own Soul. But when it cometh to a case or controversie between him and his Friends, then he held fast his Righteousness, the Righteousness of his San­ctification and Conversation.’

This leads us to a consideration of that Text, Phil. 3. 8, 9. as managed by Antisozzo and our Author, distinctly; but I shall set down the former's own pre­liminary observations, as to the matter in hand, p 546.—‘But now let the Reader take something warm next his heart, let him use his Phyal of Essen­ces, for our Author is just now a coming to examine those Texts of Scripture, which are abused by these Men, to set up the Personal Righteousness of Christ, as the only formal cause of our Justification. And must not those Texts of Scripture be miserably abused indeed, that are prest in for such a Service? What is the Personal Righteousness the formal cause of our Justification? I have heard some say it was the Meritorious cause, some the Impulsive cause, others the Material cause, and some, that it is No cause: But, our Author is the first that ever I heard this expression from. There was once a good Or­thodox Bishop (as Orthodoxy past in that Age) his Name Downham; he hath written many a long Page upon this Subject; and he acquaints us with the Sense of Protestants, Lib. 1. Cap. 3. Sect. 1. That the matter of our Justifica­tion is Christ's Righteousness, and the form is God's imputing it. And this may go with most of your Systematical Divines. But from hence I learn, it's the Mode nowa-dayes, for these Gentlemen to Confute (that is, to rail at) those long-winded Authors, they never had the Patience to Read, nor the Brains to understand; but, let this pass among our Author's Negligences, or Ignorances, till I understand better where to Marshal it. In the examining [Page 69] the Texts which they abuse, he will begin and end with, Phil. 3. 8, 9.’ Not far unlike our Author, who begins with it in his Preface, and almost closes his Book with the same.