A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane, Printers advertisment

A Fresh Antidote Against Neonomian Bane · Printers advertisment

A Catalogue of Mr, Iſaac Chauncy's Books, Printed for, and Sold by William Marſhall, at the Bible in Newgate Street.

1. NEonomianiſm Ʋnmask'd: Or the Ancient Goſpel pleaded for, againſt the other called, a new Law or Goſpel, in a Theological Debate, occaſioned by a Book lately wrote by Mr. Dan. Williams, entituled, Goſpel Truth ſtated & vindicated, pri. 6 d.

2. The 2d part of Neonomianiſm un-maſk'd, or the Ancient Goſpel pleaded for, againſt the other called, the New Law, wherein the following Points are diſcourſed: 1. What the ſtate of the Elect is before effectual calling. 2. Whether Good laid our Sins on Chriſt. 3. Whether the Elect were diſcharg'd from ſin upon Chriſt's bearing them. 4. Whether the elect ceaſe to her ſinners from the time their ſins were laid on Chriſt. 5. What was the time when our ſins were laid on Chriſt. 6. Whether God was ſeparated from Chriſt while our ſins were laid upon him.

To be had with his whole Works, and not ſingle; any other Part may be had ſingle at the ſame Price ſet to them.

3. The 3d part of Neonomianiſm Ʋnmask'd: Or the Ancient Goſpel. Wherein theſe following Points are diſcuſſed: 1. Of a Change of Perſon between Chriſt and the Elect. 2. Of the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace. 3. Of the nature of Saving Faith. 4. Of the free offer of Chriſt to ſinners, and of Preparatory Qualifications. 5. Of Ʋnion to Chriſt before Faith. 6. Of Juſtification by Faith. 7. Of the neceſſity and benefit of Holineſs, Obedience and Good Works, with Perſeverance therein. 8. Of intending our Souls Good, by Duties we perform. 9. Of the way to attain Aſſurance. 10. Of God's ſeeing Sin in his People. 11. Of the Hurt that ſin may do to Believers. 12. Of Gods diſpleaſure for ſin in the afflictions of his People. 13. Of the Beauty of ſincere Holineſs. 14. Of Goſpel and legal preaching. 15. Mr. John Nisbet's Reply to D W. Price 2 s. 6 d.

4. A Rejoinder; to Mr. Dan. Williams's Reply to the firſt part of Neonomianiſm unmaskt; wherein his Defence is examined, and his Arguments anſwered, whereby he endeavours to prove the Goſpel to be a new Law with Sanction, and the contrary is proved, 1. By ſhewing what a Law is. 2. By ſhewing what the Goſpel is. 3. Several Arguments proving that the Goſpel is not a New Law with Sanction. 4. An Account given of the Beginning and Progreſs of this Neonomian Error. Price. 6 d.

5. A friendly Examination of the Pacifick Paper, concerning the conſiſtency of abſolute Election of particular Perſons, with the Univerſality of Redemption, and the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace; where alſo the new Scheme is clearly declared in ſeveral Queſtions and Anſwers about ſome great Points of Religion. 1. In underſtanding what Chriſt did in the fleſh for all. 2. What he did in the Spirit only for his Elect. 3. As concerning the Law. 4. Of Juſtification. 5. Whether Salvation be poſſible to all Men by the Law of Grace, &c. Price 4 d.

Note. All theſe five Pieces are printed in Quarto, to bind together, and thoſe that will have them compleat ſhall have them all bound together for 5 s.

6. ☞ Another very uſeful Book of Iſaac Chauncy's, M.A. Being a Syſtem, or Body of Divinity, Intituled, The Doctrine which is according to Godlineſs, grounded upon the holy Scriptures of Truth, and agreeable to the Doctrinal part of the Engliſh Proteſtant Articles and Confeſſors: to which is annexed, The Congregational Church. Government. 1. Of a viſible Goſpel Church. 2. Of Church Officers. 3. Of Church Ordinances. 4. Of Ordinances of Goſpel Communion; And firſt of the Seals. 5. Concerning the Keys. 6. Of divers Duties which concern the comfort of Church Communion, pri. bound 2 s.

A Catalogue of ſome other Books lately Printed for Will Marſhall, and ſold at the Bible in Newgate Street.

1. A Diſcourſe of Chriſtian Religion in ſundry Points. Preached at the Merchants Lecture, in Broadſtreet, by the late Reverend Mr. Tho. Cole, M. A. and Student of Chriſts College in Oxford. Price 2 s. 6 d.

2. An Anſwer to ſix Arguments, produc'd by Du-pin. Likewiſe a Refutation of ſome of the falſe Conceits in Mr. Lock's Eſſay of Human Ʋnderſtanding. Price 6 d.

3. Stated Chriſtian Conference, aſſerted to be a Chriſtians Duty, 6d.

4. A new methodiz'd Concordance, Price 6 d.

5. A Compendium of the Covenant of Grace, as the moſt ſolid ſupport under the moſt terrible Conflicts of Death, tho arm'd with Deſertion, decay of Grace, and ſenſe of Guilt, by Walter Croſs, M. A. 6 d.

6. Bunyan of Election and Reprobation, Price 6 d.

7. Chriſtianity the great Myſtery, in anſwer to a late Treatiſe, intituled Chriſtianity not Myſterious; together with a Poſtſcript Letter to the Author. Price 1 s.

8. The young Man's Guide for Drawing, Limning and Etching, with printed Directions, Price 1 s.

At the Bible in Newgate Street, you may be ſupplied with all ſorts of Printed Books of moſt Authors, Bibles, Teſtaments, Grammars, with all ſorts of School-Books, moſt ſorts of Almanacks, OLD BOOKS New Bound of any ſorts: Alſo all ſorts of Stationary Wares, as Paper, Pens, Ink, Wax, Bonds, Bills Funeral Tickets, Printed at reaſonable Rates. Alſo Dr. Daffy's Cordial Elixir; Blagrave's Spirit of Scurvigraſs, both purging and plain. Queen of Hungarys Water: Bromfield's PILLS.

p. 1SOME REMARKS UPON The B. of W.s' diſcourſe concerning the doctrine of Satisfaction, in Anſwer to Mr. L.'s Appeal.

I ſhall not ſpend time in rectifying what the B. ſaith concerning the occaſion of the preſent difference, believing the B. ſaith nothing in this Matter but what he had from one Party concern'd, who gave him, as appears, a very unfair and partial repreſentation of theſe things, as they have done elſewhere; and therefore becauſe I will not actum agere, I refer the Reader to the Hiſtory of the Union, and of the cauſes of the Breach thereof, and counſel him as a Lover of Truth, to believe no more of what the B. writes on this account than what he finds is conſonant to the ſaid Hiſtory.

§. 2. I therefore paſs over to the ſecond Chapter of the Myſtery of Antinom. laid open; and firſt, I muſt take notice of the B. Conceſſion.

p. 2That if there were no more in the controverſie than what is contained in theſe terms, Relative [or Connexive] Conditions, and Faederal, the controverſie might fairly and eaſily been accommodated.

I ſuppoſe this accommodation muſt have been by granting this disjunction to be true, and according to the rules of diſtribution, That a condition is that which is Axiomatically expreſs…d by the connexive conjunction Si, If, and is the Logical knitting together of an Antecedent and Conſequent, but doth not neceſſarily import the connexion of cauſe and effect, but of a uſual or requiſite dependance; ſuch as is between Antecedent and Conſequent. e. gr. If I go to the Exchange, I muſt go out of my own houſe; if I paſs into Glory, I muſt paſs thro' the State of Grace; not that the ſtate of Grace is any meritorious cauſe of Glory, but that there is ſuch a cauſe of both, and to which both anſwer as effects equally, altho' one precede the other in order. But faederal conditions are quite of another nature, of a covenant and moral nature; a covenant, having but two parts, the condition and promiſe made upon the performance of the condition, by the party required ſo to do, whereby the good thing promiſed, upon the ſaid performance of the condition is demandable by the performer, as due debt to him. Hence it's the faederal nature of the condition, not the greatneſs or ſmallneſs of the condition that makes it meritorious. If God had ſaid unto man in Paradice, Take up this leaf or that ſtraw, and thou ſhalt live for ever, eternal life had been his due, upon his doing thereof, and demandable by him, and the covenant made it ſo; viz. a due debt, ex pacto, i. e. legally ſo; for a due debt is due in a law ſenſe.

p. 3§ 2. Now what hinders this deſirable accommodation? It is the B's opinion that there is a greater miſchief in Antinomianiſm, [a Snake in the Graſs] which ought to be laid open, to prevent the miſchief of it. Antinomianiſm the B. knows in true notation of the word, and according to the ſenſe of the Apoſtle Paul, is a denial of the Juſtification of a ſinner by our own works of the law, the miſchief that attends it is only occaſional, by reaſon of men's corruption, viz. The vileneſs of corrupt and reprobate minds in the abuſe of the grace of God therein, to embolden themſelves, to ſin, becauſe grace abounds; which the Apoſtle was aware of, and warns us againſt, Rom. 6. It is not any fault in the doctrine it ſelf. Well, but what is the miſchief the B. finds? It is (ſaith he) this, all this diſpute about conditions on our part depends upon another; and if that hold, this muſt follow as a conſequence of it, and ſeveral other things which Dr. Criſp ſaw very well, had a neceſſary connexion with each other, like a fair dealer in controverſie, owned them all. Here I cannot but acknowledge the greet ingenuity of the B. beyond many others, in not only owning him a fair dealer in this controverſie that he oppoſeth him in, but in his after vindication of him from thoſe falſe imputations, which others of his adverſaries would faſten upon him ſo far, that he leaves him a mere Calviniſt, and no worſe.

§. 3. p. 74. B. I come therefore to the next thing in the firſt Paper, wherein you ſay [i. e. Mr. L.] clears the diſſenting brethren from the charge of Antinomianiſm, Report, p. 13. Rem. p. 11. Your words are, [i. e. Mr. L.'s] That touching a Change of Perſons between Chriſt and believers, there is no phyſical change, whereby Chriſt and believers do in p. 4ſtance become one another, nor a moral change, whereby Chriſt ſhould become inherently ſinful, and Believers thereby become immediately innocent, and ſinleſs, but the change is only in a legal ſenſe by conſent between the Father and him, putting on the perſon, and coming into the room and ſtead of ſinners, &c,

This is laid down for the truth of this change by Mr. L. but yet Mr. L. peremptorily diſowns Dr. Criſp's change of Perſons, as well as Mr. W. Now the B. doth very fairly ſhew and prove, that Dr. Criſp intended no other change of Perſons than what Mr. L. aſſerts to be the truth, and a clearing the aſſertors from the charge of Antinom. Now ſaith he, I ſhall make it appear that you have not herein diſowned Dr. Criſp's ſence of the change of perſons; ſo far I cannot but ſay, that the B. hath done right to Dr. Criſp and Mr. L. and it's no other than what I ever thought of the controverſie, when on foot. I ſhall not give my ſelf the trouble of tranſcribing what the B. hath done out of Dr. Criſp's Sermons, to prove his aſſertion. See p. 2. p. 75, 76, 77.

§. 4. This ſeems to be a great Myſtery, but is really the foundation of Antinomianiſm. That Chriſt had the perſonal guilt of our tranſgreſſions charged upon him, and ſo he was as ſinful as we. He ſhould have added legally, or in the eye of the law, the guilt of our ſins, the perſonal guilt of every ſaved one being charged upon him, the Reatus Culpae non perpetratio culpae; the debt, non contractio debiti. This is the truth of the Goſpel, which will ſtand as a pillar of braſs, when all the wit and malice of the oppoſers and banterers thereof will be driven away as chaff before the wind. Here are two aſſertions that p. 5we muſt ſtand by and defend the truth of againſt the B. and all other oppoſers.

In the B.'s firſt Letter he tells us what the Report ſaith, p. 5. That if there be no change of perſons between Chriſt and us, there can be no tranſlation of the guilt, nor a juſt infliction of the puniſhment of our ſins on Chriſt; i. e. there can be no proper ſatisfaction, which is truth without exception. But the B. anſwers, That there is a twofold tranſlation of guilt to be conſidered. 1. Of the perſonal guilt which reſults from the acts of ſin committed by ſuch perſons. Now the tranſlation of this guilt of ſin on Chriſt the B. all along denies, and endeavours to diſprove, 1. Perſonal guilt can be no other than the guilt of the Perſon that had committed the ſin, for which he is arraign'd at the Bar of God's Law, e. gr. John hath ſtolen, Thomas hath committed murder, and neither the guilt of John's theft, nor of Thomas's murder was transferred to Jeſus Chriſt; David's murder and adultery in the guilt thereof was not transferred to Jeſus Chriſt, nor the guilt of Peter's ſin in denying his Maſter. This is the meaning of the B. doctrine.

2. He gives his reaſon; If this guilt be tranſlated, Chriſt muſt become the very perſon who committed the ſins, and ſo become an actual Sinner; yea, as the Perſon that committed all the ſins of thoſe for whom he died.

I wonder ſo learned a man ſaw not the abſurdity of this arguing, which he took up from Mr. B. who never ſtuck at any groſs arguments to beſpatter the moſt glorious Goſpel truths. The force of the argument is thus unfolded, and made very plain. If a debt be tranſlated from one man to another, then he to whom it is tranſlated muſt be looked upon p. 6as the perſon that contracted the debt; but the B. ſaith, We muſt not look upon ſins as debts, which we ſhall ſpeak to in its place; but let us uſe another inſtance, If a thing done by one man be accounted to another, e. gr. a Repreſentative in Parliament, is that thing to be thought to be actually and perſonally performed by the perſons to whom it's accounted. The Repreſentatives of the people in Denmark gave up the liberties of the people to the King's prerogative, the people by them are accounted to have done it by the Repreſentatives, muſt therefore every Subject be ſaid actually and perſonally to have done it, when doubtleſs Hundreds of lovers of the country hated and deteſted the Action, tho' as neceſſarily included therein, as if they had actually done it. Many Inſtances of the like nature might be given, tho' theſe are enough to demonſtrate the falſeneſs of the B's odious conſequence; and we may as well wonder that any that bear any reverence to our bleſſed Saviour, ſhould not abhor ſuch dirty and irrational conſequences as theſe are, eſpecially when ſo expreſly contrary to the word of God and common reaſon. Iſa. 53. 2 Cor. 5. 3. Hence theſe men dare not but ſay there is a guilt tranſlated to Chriſt: I pray what guilt? Is it not perſonal? Is there any guilt in the world beſides what is of one Perſon or another? But our B. will find out a guilt that's not perſonal, which we will examine.

§. 5. The other branch of his diviſion of tranſlation of guilt, is of Legal Guilt, which he ſaith lyes in an obligation to Puniſhment by virtue of the Sanction of the Divine Law. Now this guilt implies two things; 1. The deſert of Puniſhment which follows perſonal guilt, and cannot be tranſferred by change of perſons, &c. 2. The obligation p. 7to undergo the deſerved puniſhment, here may intervene a change of perſons, &c.

Reader, Now obſerve what kind of guilt the B. will have Chriſt to bear: 1. He ſaith it's legal guilt, but what's that according to him? It's the obligation to puniſhment, and that's in the ſanction of the law; i. e. it's ſubjectively in the law, hence it's the guilt of the law that Chriſt muſt bear, and not the guilt of any perſon. It's true, that obligation to puniſhment is formally in the law, and therefore obligation to puniſhment cannot be called guilt, but guilt is of a perſon tranſgreſſing the law, not in the law tranſgreſſed. 2. He ſaith this guilt implies two things: What is the meaning of implies? Is it that the laws obligation of a tranſgreſſor to puniſhment eſſentially contains in it thoſe two things? 1. An actual deſert of puniſhment, and obligation of ſome Perſon to undergo it. Surely not, for if the law had never been tranſgreſſed, it had contain'd this in it; that if ever any do deſerve it, they ſhall be obliged to puniſhment. 2. Doth it imply theſe integrally their deſert of puniſhment, and obligation to puniſhment are the parts of the forenamed legal guilt, then the deſert of puniſhment, as well as obligation to puniſhment; i. e. no other than the fault muſt lye in the law, for it can't be in more ſubjects than one, and the B. muſt come under the force of this Dilemma, if he will allow any ſuch thing as guilt, that it is ſubjectively in ſome perſon, and ſo perſonal, or in the law it ſelf. Now there's no fault in the law, therefore no guilt. 3. He ſaith, deſert of puniſhment follows perſonal guilt, but by his favour it is perſonal guilt it ſelf, the merit of puniſhment is in the fault, the very foreign for what deſerves puniſhment but ſin, to which the law p. 8makes the wages of Death due; not continuing in all things written in the law? The law enquires no further than it finds the fault, wherein it hath found the deſert; it's formally and eſſentially in it; it's true, the ſentence follows this, but the deſert lyes in the eſſential moral contrariety of the action to the obedience of the law required it; the wiſdom of God ſaith, the taking away of guilt is to take away ſin.

4. He aſſerts, but hath not proved, That perſonal guilt can't be transferred by change of perſons: His ſtrong reaſon is, For no man can ceaſe to deſerve puniſhment for his own faults, nor deſerve that another ſhould be puniſhed for them. The aſſertion is, that perſonal guilt can't be transferred; then certainly no guilt at all; for there is no guilt but is perſonally contracted, and perſonally adhering, and therefore Chriſt bore no guilt of Sin at all, moſt contrary to Scripture, and the very known nature of a ſurety, which always is in bearing the ſin of the tranſgreſſor by change of perſons. 2. He argues to prove it, That no man can ceaſe to deſerve puniſhment for his own faults. An excellent aſſertion: If ſo, I am ſure God can't ceaſe to puniſh him, for he renders to every one according to his deſerts, he is a juſt God. 2. This poſition throws down the whole ſatisfaction of Chriſt at one blow; for if Chriſt hath not taken off the perſonal deſert of ſin from any, he hath not ſatisfied the law; for if according to the B. he takes off the legal obligation of any to puniſhment, he takes off the deſert by the law. 3. It will follow, that not only believers, but the glorified Saints in Heaven, are ſtill under the perſonal guilt and deſert of puniſhment; and if ſo, p. 9they can't be in the favour of God, they can't be foreign, without ſpot before the Throne, they are under the perſonal guilt of all their ſins, and this is no ſpot of God's Children, but an eſſential form of a Helliſh State. The B. here hath very inconſiderately run himſelf upon the rocks, tho' with the reſt of the Neonomians he doth ſo frequently charge thoſe that are contrary minded with Shallowneſs, Illiterateneſs, &c. It is one thing to ſin and contract a perſonal guilt, and another thing to lye under this perſonal guilt; ſure bare pardon of ſin by him that hath power to pardon, takes off perſonal guilt in the B's ſence, the obligation of the perſon to puniſhment, elſe after pardon the law may take him up again, and would, even in mens proceedings by law; but in God's there's not only the pardon of the ſinner, but a juſt ſatisfaction to the law, Rom. 8.1.

§. 6. The B. adds,— Nor deſerve that another ſhould be puniſh'd for them. What will not men of perverſe minds ſay?

Whoever aſſerted that ſinners deſerved that Chriſt ſhould ſuffer for them, I wonder men are not aſham'd of ſuch groſs impoſitions, quite contrary to the known minds of others, but to the nature of the thing; for where did any debtor or criminal deſerve that another ſhould ſuffer for him, either by his good works, to deſerve ſo much good of another, or by his evil works, to make another, that is neither criminal nor acceſſory, guilty? How much leſs may it be ſaid of us that we deſerved that Chriſt ſhould be puniſhed for us? The B. ſaith Chriſt was puniſhed for us, the obligation of the law binding us over to puniſhment, and that Chriſt took the puniſhment in our ſtead; was it becauſe we deſerv'd it, or not? If it was not becauſe we deſerv'd if, it p. 10was not in our ſtead; we ſay not that it was in the nature of our ſins to deſerve his puniſhment, but in the grace, wiſdom and juſtice of the Legiſlator. As the B. ſaith, it was of grace of God to find a ranſom, it was of the grace of the Son to give up himſelf unto juſtice for this end, it was to the honour of divine juſtice to accept of his glorious ſatisfaction in the ſinners room and ſtead; here's nothing of the ſinner's deſerving that brought Chriſt's ſuffering for the ſinners, but the ſubſtitution of Chriſt, for this end, by the Father and himſelf, tho' the ſinner deſerves puniſhment.

§. 7. The ſecond thing according to the B. implied in Legal guilt, is obligation to undergo the deſerved puniſhment, but becauſe the execution of puniſhment depends on the wiſdom and juſtice of the Legiſlator, therefore here a change of perſon may intervene. A. It behoves us to be exact with the B. here, becauſe he acquaints us with a curioſity in this point of change of perſons, that of late men have ſo ſhittlecock'd it up and down, that it's hard to find what either ſide would have, but what they both agreed in, that they would not have it to be what Dr. Criſp ſaid it was. 1. What is the reaſon the B. diſtinguiſheth the obligation to undergo the deſerved puniſhment, and execution of puniſhment? Why ſaith he, not execution of deſerved puniſhment? To me it ſeems to be a very ſmatch of Socinianiſm; as if Chriſt did not undergo any deſerved puniſhment, but only a puniſhment without deſert; i. e. only ſuffering, and not puniſhment in any proper ſence. 2. If obligation to undergo the deſerved puniſhment be the guilt only tranſferred to Chriſt, then it will follow, it's only the guilt of the law is charged on Chriſt, not of the p. 11ſinner; and it's plain the B. means ſo, for he denies that the guilt of any perſon is charged on Chriſt. 3. He ſaith, this obligation to puniſhment is only in the law and its truth, therefore he means that this law obligation falling on Chriſt, is all the guilt that falls upon him, and here may be no change of perſons; for tho' the law obligation may fall upon John and Thomas, and John be never the better that it falls on Thomas, becauſe it falls not on Thomas for the ſake of John: But he ſaith, that here a change of perſons may intervene; how? between two perſons to undergo puniſhments? If ſo, it muſt be under one and the ſame law, not a change from being under one law, to a being under another. 2. It muſt be a change in reſpect of deſerved puniſhment; for puniſhment cannot be without deſert, it becomes not the wiſdom and juſtice of God that it ſhould be be ſo. 3. If the change be in reſpect of deſerved puniſhment, we have gained as much as we expect; for then the deſert of the ſinner, which is of his fault, and his guilt is tranſlated to Chriſt, becauſe his puniſhment was deſerved, e. gr. he bore the deſerved puniſhment of ſin, of what or whom, of the law; nay, the law never deſerved puniſhment of any perſons; nay, quoth the B. he bore no perſonal guilt, then there is no change in reſpect of deſerved puniſhment; Chriſt ſuffer'd for us, but was not puniſhed for any, he ſuffered no deſerved puniſhment? Hence no puniſhment at all, for all juſt puniſhment is due.

§. 8. He ſaith, The execution of puniſhment depends on the wiſdom and juſtice of the Legiſlator. It is true, therefore ought not the execution of puniſhment anſwer the obligation to it? Is it wiſdom and juſtice in God to oblige in his law, to p. 12any puniſhment not deſerved? And is it wiſdom or juſtice in God to oblige in his law to deſerved puniſhment, and not to execute deſerved puniſhments? For if Chriſt's puniſhments were not deſerved, they were meer ſufferings; and if ſo, no more to us than the ſuffering of a Martyr to us; if deſerved ſuffering, then, 1. According to ſome rule of juſtice. 2. Deſerved by himſelf, or ſome others; not by himſelf, and his own individual perſon, you will ſay; therefore by ſome other. Hence if Chriſt bore deſerved puniſhments of others, he bore the guilt of ſin, the Reatus culpae, that being the formal deſert of puniſhment, the law making it ſo, either of God or Man. He ſaith, By the wiſdom and juſtice of God a mediator may be accepted in ſuch a manner as himſelf hath determined, and upon acceptance of his Sacrifice the offenders may be pardoned, and received into grace and favour of God on ſuch terms as he hath declared in the Goſpel, and in this ſence is the guilt of ſins charged on Chriſt, &c. A. It is much that theſe men can take upon themſelves a power of directing God, and telling him what he may do, when God hath never ſaid that he did or would do ſo, the true Explanation of the B's ſence in this paragraph is by the new-coin'd law, but we will take him in his own terms: And I ſay, in God's execution of puniſhment it becomes the wiſdom and juſtice of God to do it according to a promulgated law, which the Legiſlator hath in his wiſdom and juſtice made a manifeſt Norma Juſtitiae, to ſhew forth his juſtice, and that God may be juſtified as Judge of all the world, to deal righteouſly, and therefore not to accept of a Sinner or a Mediator for them upon other terms than is in his law expreſs'd, and not upon p. 13other ſecret and unknown terms. 2. How may God accept of a Mediator? Is it not in ſatisfying: for the ſinner, in bearing the ſinners deſerved puniſhment, and therein taking off the laws obligation of the Sinner to puniſhment? God can't otherwiſe do in wiſdom or juſtice. 3. He makes God's acceptance of a ſacrifice to be an antecedent of pardon only, not a ſatisfying and meritorious reaſon thereof. 4. How doth God accept. Chriſt's ſacrifice, as a ſingle noble act, done by him, wherein none is concern'd but himſelf; or a qualifying act to God himſelf, to make him able to pardon? Or doth he accept his ſacrifice for ſinners deſerving puniſhment under the law? Taking their deſerts and puniſhment upon himſelf, then he is a mediatorial ſacrifice; otherwiſe; if the guilt lyes upon perſons unremoved, he is neither a ſacrifice for their ſins, nor accepted of God as ſuch. 5. Is it according to the juſtice of God to accept a ſacrifice for ſinners, whoſe perſonal guilt he never took away thereby, and pardon and receive them into favour upon other terms afterwards? Sure then the mediator is not accepted till they have performed thoſe conditions, upon which their pardon and acceptance is laid.

§. 9. In anſwer to the Reporter, p. 8. he takes occaſion to tell him that the Conſideration of ſins as debts is a wrong notion, and gives up the point of Satisfaction to the Socinians. If it do, it doth but as the B. and his right Reverend Father Mr. B. hath done, from whom he took up this divinity. It ſeems the ſpirit of God did not ſo well conſider of it as the B. hath done, nor our maſter the Lord Jeſus, when he taught his diſciples to pray ſo; I know it ſticks cruelly in the Neonom. ſtomachs that our Lord Jeſus was ſo raſh and inconſiderate to make uſe p. 14of this word debt for ſin; but why doth this give away the cauſe to Socinians? Becauſe if ſins be conſidered as debts, God may freely forgive them (without diſparagement to his wiſdom and juſtice) without any Satisfaction. But what if God will not? He hath revealed this in his word, that he will by no means acquit the guilty without ſatiſfaction; we are not ſpeaking of God's abſolute Power, but of his ordinate; neither are we ſpeaking of God's acting by his ſoveraign dominion, but by his acting in a way of juſtice; becauſe where there's ſin, there is a law tranſgreſſed, and God's dealing with the ſinner muſt be in a way of juſtice, unleſs God repeal his law, or diſpenſe with it, as the Neonom. will have it, but we can't admit thereof. But, 2. Why can't God upon the ſame reaſon forgive a criminal by his prerogative, as well as a debtor? An earthly King may, why not the King of Kings? 3. And why is not ſin a debt in a proper ſence enough? Is it not a debt to God's juſtice, and made ſo by God's law, and treated as ſuch in the very point of Satisfaction? It's ſuch a Debt as muſt be ſatisfied, 1 Pet. 1.18, 19. 1 Cor. 6.23, and 7.23. and elſewhere, muſt it of neceſſity be a money debt, and no other? He ſaith, I can't but wonder at the learned author, that he doth at the ſame time aſſert our ſins to be conſidered as debts, and the neceſſity of vindictive juſtice; for what vindictive juſtice belongs to a creditor? I have rather wondred at the learned Author, that he ſhould be taken with ſuch a Delirium, as to ſuppoſe B. Stillingfleet to be for a Commutation of Perſons in ſano ſenſu, having been ſufficiently informed by his Letters of his Neonom. principles, before he appeal to him, and flattered him ſo offenſively as he did. But ad rem, p. 151. The B. knew that ſimilitude or metaphorical expreſſions are not to be forc'd to run on four feet; for tho' ſins be moſt fitly called debts to the juſtice of God, yet God is not therefore a money creditor, but with neceſſity of Vindictive Juſtice to a creditor; ſure, impriſonment is vindictive juſtice, or ſeizing on all that a man hath; doth not God in juſtice ſeize on all a ſinner hath by his curſe, and caſt him into priſon till he hath paid the utmoſt Farthing? Matth. 5.26. Sure Chriſt's own Phraſeology might be admitted by us, but it ſeems not by this B. and ſome others; ſee further his Neonom. ſpirit; he calls Chriſt's language, in calling ſin debts to God, and aſcribing Vindictive Juſtice to ſuch an adverſary rude and inconſiſtent, and he can hardly think ſuch ever penetrated into theſe matters, but took up with a ſett of phraſes. I always found theſe Neonom. great boaſters of their own wit, and deep penetration into things; anſwer their adverſaries ſtill more by contemptuous and approbrious language, than by any fair way of argumentation; tho' I muſt confeſs I do not find this learned B. ſo addicted to this foul way of treating thoſe that diſſent from him, as many others of the Neonom. kidney that are far ſhort of him in learning and gentility.

The main deſign of this diſcourſe, in anſwer to Mr. Lob's Appeal, is to ſhew how much the good man was miſtaken, as to believe that he, the B. was for Commutation of perſons in his ſence, but he was for Commutation in Mr. W. and the Neonom. ſence. The meaning of all, that there hath been ſuch a ſputter about, and ſo much foul language, unbecoming Chriſtians, much more Miniſters, lyes in this one Queſtion, whether Chriſt was made of p. 16God ſin and curſe for ſinners? And whether the ſaid ſinners believing become the righteouſneſs of God in him? The Commutation according to ſcripture lyes here; that Chriſt inſtead of the guilty ſinner became ſin and curſe, and that the Sinner in Chriſt becomes righteous and guitleſs. Now ſaith the B. That the change was not in reſpect of ſin, aſſerting that Chriſt bore no perſonal guilt, but that he bore only puniſhment, that we ſhould not be puniſh'd upon our Faith and Repentance; ſo that he muſt hold the Commutation of perſons is not in reſpect of ſin and righteouſneſs, (for that perſon that is taken from the guilt of ſin in foro juſtitiae, can never be righteous) but only in reſpect of puniſhment and impunity. 4. That Chriſt was puniſh'd, that the ſinner might not, but that this change was not abſolute, but conditional; and to be future upon terms to be performed by one party, when he ſhould have an actual Being in the world, when he ſhould perform the fixed conditions of Faith, Repentance, and good Works. Again, he will not have it ſuch a change as is between the ſurety and debtor, but ſuch a change as is between two private perſons; one doing a good turn for, on the behalf, and ſo inſtead of the other denying Chriſt to be a publick perſon, to be in his Mediatorſhip a ſurety, or legal Repreſentative before God's Tribunal of Juſtice; and this I find every where to be the Neonom. Doctrine: But I ſhall aſſert, that the B's change of perſons is none at all; for if it be not of perſons as ſtanding in relation to the law, it's none at all in a law ſence; Chriſt bearing no guilt by law obligation, and the ſinner being freed from none thereby, this is enough to ſay of it here, my deſign being to be ſhort, I can't fill up my paper with rehearſal p. 17of the very Words which I have tired my ſelf too much in already, nor enter upon a tedious Litigation about Words or Senſe of them; and if Dr Criſp or the Bp. have not well expreſs'd themſelves, I leave thoſe Words to themſelves, and apply my ſelf only to the true ſenſe and meaning of the Bp. in that point, which he mainly proſecutes in this treatiſe.

Bp. p. 79. My buſineſs at preſent is about tranſferring our very faults upon Chriſt, which Dr. Criſp calls the guilt of the fact. A. I need not here tell the Reader that the Aſſertor doth diſtinguiſh between the fact and the guilt of the fact, the Culpa & reatus culpae; the Bp. himſelf hath vindicated him from the charge, of ſaying that the fact it ſelf was charged on Chriſt, p. 77. Dr. Criſp denies Chriſt to be the actual tranſgreſſor, but aſſerted that he had the perſonal guilt of our Sins upon him, and built his whole Hypotheſis upon it. This then is the Queſtion in ſhort to be diſcuſſed, Whether Chriſt in his ſufferings bare upon him the perſonal guilt of Sin? The affirmative is the truth in our judgment, let who will aſſert it; the Bp. holds the negative throughout his treatiſe, as being the vertical point, upon which the whole controverſie of change of perſons doth turn.

§. 2. I deſire to ſpeak as plainly in this matter as may be, and as briefly, and ſhall paſs over all the proofs that the Bp. hath made, that this was the Dr's judgment, with this conceſſion that it was ſo, yea, and all the needleſs remarks, interpretations and banters that he hath upon what the Doctor hath ſaid, and only take notice of the things of weight. But firſt it is neceſſary to ſhew how we underſtand this Queſtion.

p. 181. In what capacity Chriſt ſtood when he bore ſin and puniſhment?

2. In what ſenſe he bore ſin?

3. What perſonal guilt is?

4. How Chriſt came to bear perſonal guilt?

A. As to the firſt, that Chriſt ſtood in the capacity of a publick perſon, repreſenting the whole body of the Elect under the conſideration of the lapſed Eſtate and Condition in the firſt Adam.

As to the ſecond, when we ſay Chriſt bore Sin, it's neither treaſon or blaſphemy, as our Adverſaries would have it, becauſe we ſpeak in the language of the Spirit of God; however, to prevent cavilling, we will vouchſafe to yeild to the Bp's term, perſonal guilt, which can import nothing but the committed Sin remaining on the ſinner's perſon and conſcience, as a forbidden and condemned fault by the law; neither do we ſay that Chriſt committed theſe Sins, or was made to have committed them when our Sins were laid upon him, neither that his Nature was phyſically or morally corrupted thereby. Laſtly, We cannot but adore the wiſdom of God, in calling perſonal guilt Sin, becauſe, 1. A bare phyſical Act as ſuch is not Sin, and as all killing is not ſin, but Sin is a phyſical Act cloathed with a moral Exorbitancy ariſing from its relation to, and comparing with the law of God, therefore, to ſay the ſubſtratum of the phyſical act or defect, is transferred from one ſubject to another, is moſt abſurd; but the guilt of this fact, and its moral relation to the law, may be transferred and taken away from the ſubject tranſgreſſor, as we ſhall make it appear.

As to the third, the Bp. tells us what he means by perſonal guilt, and it's very plain. David's perſonal guilt was of Murder and Adultery, ſo Peter's p. 19of denying his Maſter. Now the Bp. will not have perſonal guilt ever to be taken off from any, but that David continues in Heaven under perſonal guilt of Murder and Adultery to this Day, and for ever.

Laſtly, Chriſt came to bear Sin; 1. By God's call, and his acceptance, voluntarily obeying his Father's command. 2. In ſubmitting himſelf to a legal way of proceeding with him when he came under the ſame law the tranſgreſſor was under. 3. By a legal accounting and imputing our Sin to him, he coming in forum Juſtitiae, and writing himſelf debtor in the room and ſtead of all the inſolvent debtors to the Law of God, Juſtice accepts of him as a ſufficient Paymaſter. Hence in the law ſenſe Chriſt was called by God, what he was not in a natural ſenſe, Rom. 4. He was made Sin, who knew no Sin; and God calls things that are not, as tho' they were, both in calling Chriſt Sin, and us Righteous.

§. 3. Now we ſay that Commutation of Perſons, was ſo far, and no more nor leſs than God hath made it to be in his legal way of proceeding in this great myſtery: That Chriſt ſhould according to the Preordination and Conſtitution of the Father, freely put himſelf under a judicial Proceſs for the Sins of all the Elect under the ſame law that they tranſgreſſed, and that Juſtice ſhould deal with him as if he had been the original tranſgreſſor; and in the ſtead thereof, in transferring the charge upon him, and puniſhing him for Sin. Hereupon follows the change, that he is made Sin, and we Righteouſneſs in him, Juſtice receiving full ſatisfaction for our Sins. Hence we ſhall not much trouble our ſelves with the many odious Inferences that the p. 20Neonom. would draw upon this glorious Myſtery, nor the dirty Reflections on the unſearchable Wiſdom of God, the Truth being as fully and plainly made manifeſt in Holy Writ, as any doctrine of Godlineſs.

1. It is plain that Sin was laid on Chriſt in ſome ſence or other, the Scripture being ſo expreſs in it. 2. It's granted on all hands the phyſical part of the Act was not transferred to Chriſt; after which, that which remains on the Sinner is the guilt of it, which is his relation to the law in the moral ſenſe, as a tranſgreſſor, and muſt be his foreign, the laws condemnation of the Fact making his guilt or deſert of puniſhment. 3. The Spirit of God calls this Merit or Deſert, Sin, and ſhall we call it contrary to Scripture? Where doth the Scripture ſay it was not? It ſaith again and again that it was, and what if contrary to the Bp's reaſon? Are we to believe God or Man? Is the Bp's reaſon the rule of our Faith? What if the ſame word be uſed in Scripture for Sin and Puniſhment? I grant that one word in Hebrew is uſed for Sin, and the Sacrifice for Sin ſometimes; but when it's uſed for the Sacrifice, it's therefore uſed, becauſe Sin was judicially transferred to the Sacrifice; that it bore the Sin of the Tranſgreſſor, ſo that it became the formalis ratio of its Suffering; and therefore it's denominated from its moſt eſſential cauſe. To ſay it's a tropical word, is not much to the purpoſe, it being ſuch as expreſſeth the very nature of the thing as often in Scripture by a Metonimy, Senſus pornitur pro ſenſili, a Grace of the Spirit put for the Object, Faith for the Object, and Hope for its Object; ſo here Sin for the perſonal guilt of Sin, the Subject put for an eſſential or proper Production: p. 21It's a Metan. of another nature from that, this is my Body, where Signum is put for Signatum, and its true the Scripture doth always denote the guilt of Sin by Sin, and the Bp. doth concede, that Puniſhment is not Sin, but a Conſequent of guilt; we ſay it's more than a mere Conſequent, it is a merited effect, and Sin always deſerves and merits Puniſhment, tho' no Sinner merited, that a Surety ſhould be puniſhed for him; this is by Gracious Surrogation or Subſtitution. And it's to contradict Scripture, to make Puniſhment ſeparable from guilt, and for good reaſon to; for no juſt Law puniſheth any one but the guilty, whereby it's always ſaid that Sin lyes upon him, i. e. the juſt charge of Sin.

§. 4. Bp. Obj. But Puniſhment muſt have relation to Sin as to the ſame Perſon. This is true, it muſt, and always hath; Sin is inſeparable from Puniſhment in the ſame Perſon according to the juſt Terms and Conſtitution of any Law, by which any Perſon is puniſhed.

To this the Bp. ſaith, he anſwers diſtinctly, that there are three ways our Sins are ſaid to have relation to Chriſt's Sufferings. 1. As an external impulſive cauſe no more than occaſional, no proper reaſon of Puniſhment; and ſo for the Socinians. This I ſuppoſe he leaves to the Socinians, with whom Mr. B. is one in this point. 2. As an impulſive cauſe becomes meritorious by the voluntary Act of Chriſt's undertaking to ſatisfie Divine Juſtice for our Sins, and not as his own. 3. As to the Perſonal guilt of our Sins.

Theſe three ways of Sin's relation to Chriſt, we will conſider. 1. The fact of Sin, and from it the guilt of it is the proper meritorious cauſe of Puniſhment; p. 22it's cauſa proegumena, internal always to the puniſhed, let the Socin. and Mr. B. ſay what they will, the puniſhed is always the guilty Perſon, and he is therefore puniſhed, becauſe guilty. 2. This Impulſive of ours becomes meritorious; he ſaith, how I pray? By Chriſt voluntary undertaking, &c. This is very abſurd, that Chriſt's free undertaking ſhould make Sin meritorious, was not Sin meritorious of Puniſhment of it ſelf. What is the Sin of faln Angels, that Chriſt never undertook for? But he ſhould have ſaid that Chriſt's voluntary undertaking brought the guilt and puniſhment upon himſelf, by his coming under a Law Tranſaction; for he ſaith, it was to ſatisfie Divine Juſtice; and can Juſtice be ſatisfied by the Sufferings of a Perſon no way guilty in the Eye of Juſtice? That's ſtrange Juſtice. But ſtill ſaith the Bp. They are conſider'd as our Sins, and not his; true, our Sins originally, but his by a Law Tranſmiſſion, elſe he could not be puniſhed by the Law.

But now ſee how the Bp. after his brandiſhing by way of Oppoſition, is neceſſitated to fall into rank and file with us. They are not Chriſt's Sins any further than by conſent he took upon himſelf to bear the guilt which relates to Puniſhment, and ſo they come to be juſtly charged upon him. Now I pray what is it that the Bp. ſaith in the winding up of the Matter more than what we ſay; for he ſaith, 1. The Sins were ours, not his originally and primarily, and the guilt remains in all thoſe for which Chriſt died not. 2. Theſe Sins of all ſaved ones become Chriſt's in the guilt of them, thro' his free and voluntary Intervention. 3. That he took upon himſelf that guilt which relates to puniſhment; i. e. its proper law relation. 4. And ſo they come p. 23to be juſtly charged upon him; here the Bp hath given us the whole Point; for, 1. He allows guilt to be diſtinct from Puniſhment; for Relata are contraria affirmantia; and it's a true notion that guilt and puniſhment are proper relata conſtantia ex mutua alterius affectione, and therefore diſtinct. 2. That Chriſt took upon him to bear the guilt that relates to puniſhment; it came not from the Sinner that Chriſt bore the guilt, but from God's Ordination and Chriſt's Submiſſion to law proceding, and thence wrote himſelf Debtor to the Law and Juſtice of God inſtead of Sinners, and was accepted as plenary Paymaſter. 3. He owns that Sin came juſtly chargeable on him; the charge of Sin on the Sinner is that whereby he becomes guilty before God, Rom. 3.19. for he that's juſtly puniſhed, is juſtly charged; as he ſaith, charged upon him, muſt be in a way of Law proceeding; and tho' God hath made him to confeſs the Truth in Words, yet it fully appears by his after Diſcourſe, that he believes not a word of it in ſano ſenſu.

§. 3. The third thing, wherein our Sins have relation to the Sufferings of Chriſt, he ſaith, As to the perſonal Guilt of our Sins, which he denies and decries after he had in the ſame Breath own'd Chriſt's bearing the guilt of our Sins; now he will have Chriſt to bear the guilt of our Sins, but not the perſonal; as if there were or could be any guilt that is not of one perſon or another; or if there were ſome generical guilt found in individual Perſons; his Exceptions are,

1. The fault of the Sins are not laid on Chriſt. 1. Then its Law Relation was not laid on Chriſt; and Chriſt being puniſhed for no fault of himſelf or others, was unjuſtly puniſhed; nay, he ſaith he p. 24was juſtly charged; Is any juſtly charged, when charged with no fault?

2. He excepts againſt ſaying that laying Sin upon Chriſt makes Chriſt really a Tranſgreſſor; but how is that ſaid? It is in a legal Senſe, not phyſical, therefore Chriſt is ſaid to be made Sin, viz. Such he was not before, nor was in his own Natures, but was really accepted inſtead of the guilty Sinner, not Romantickly and Fabulouſly, the Tranſaction was real, according to the nature of it. As to the denial of Imputation, it's a groſs Error in whoever it is, Dr. Criſp, or Mr. B. the firſt miſtakingly denies the ſenſe of the word, but Mr. B. denies the thing it ſelf, the very Doctrine of Imputation of Sin to Chriſt, as the Bp. the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt to us, having theſe invective Words.

As the Papiſts have by no means more alienated the reformed from them irreconcileably, than by obtruding as an Article of Faith, the Impoſſibilities and Contradictions of Tranſubſtantiation; ſo ſome erroneous Proteſtants have no way Men made the Papiſts irreconcileable to us, than by holding forth the Impoſſibilities and Abſurdities of imputed Righteouſneſs, as a moſt neceſſary part of the Goſpel. Meth. Theol. Part iii. Ch. 27. Page 322.

The great Argument propounded by Dr. Criſp very unwarily, he not ſeeing how far it would run, but ſufficiently improved by Mr. B. is this: That God hath no other Thoughts of things than as they are. —So doth he eſteem and think of things, and conſequently of Sin; in Knowledge we muſt diſtinguiſh between Things and Relation, and between one Relative and another. God thinks of things as they are under divers reſpects, God thinks p. 25and knows what we are by Nature; yea, the moſt eminent Believer is by Nature a Child of Wrath as well as the other; but he knows alſo what he is through Grace, what under a Covenant of Works, and what under a Covenant of Grace; Sinners in the firſt Adam, Righteous in the ſecond. God calls things that are not, as though they were: God calls his Son Sin, in a Law-ſence, who never Sinned; and a Sinner, Righteous in Chriſt, who never was Righteous in himſelf: He ſees him as acceptable in his ſight, he having cloathed him with his Righteouſneſs, as if he were perfectly Righteous in himſelf. God knows and ſees all things as he is Omniſcient, but yet doth not ſee reconciled Ones in their Sins, and Guilt of them, by the Eye of his Juſtice: God ſaw Chriſt under Sin by the Eye of his Juſtice, when he was under the charge of Sin, and his Perſon abſolutely conſidered moſt pleaſing to him.

It is no way inconſiſtent with the Nature of God to know what any thing is in its abſolute Being, and what it is in this or that relation; to know a Creature is a Man, and to know him to ſtand under the relation of a Father or a Son; to know what he is Naturally, and what Morally; for this is not inconſiſtent with Man's knowledge, much leſs with God's; therefore when God knows a thing, what it is in one reſpect, and calls it another; it is to be ſuppoſed that he really puts that reſpect or relation upon it; as when God calls a Man a Sinner in reſpect of the Old Covenant, and Righteous in reſpect to the New; it is to be ſuppoſed that the ſaid Perſon hath thoſe oppoſite relations really upon him firſt and laſt, and that the ſaid relations are real, and not feigned, in their reſpective way and manner of exiſting. So Chriſt Jeſus in reſpect of Sinners, p. 26in whoſe ſtead he ſtood relatively, as a Surety, was made truly Sin and Curſe in a Law-ſenſe; reckon'd by God to be really in that Relation, not feignedly; And this is imputation of Sin to Chriſt; which term ought not to be rejected, whoever it is that makes light of it, Dr. C. or Mr. B. or any other, but moſt excellently expreſſive of the Goſpel Myſtery; as not impoſing any thing on God but what is moſt conſiſtent with his Perfections: For as God can and hath brought his Son under a Law-relation, as a Surety Mediatorial, and as ſuch to ſtand inſtead of Sinners under a charge of Sin, for the Guilt of their Sins; he judgeth as things are, when he accounts him, and calls him what he hath made him, Sin and Curſe, in this Law-reſpect, and relation, how pleaſing ſoever his Perſon is to him, being ſingly and abſtractly conſidered from the ſaid relation.

§. 6. The Bp. excepts againſt the taking of the immediate diſcharge of a Sinner, upon Chriſt's bearing of Sin.

A. It is eaſie by general and indiſtinct charges to make Men's Opinions look very abſurd, if one Man ſpeak not ſo exactly in a looſe and popular Diſcourſe; are all the Drs. in the World to look upon it as their great Renown to carp at his Words, that are Printed but juſt as taken from him, and not Corrected by him? I think Learned Drs. do much undervalue themſelves in ſo doing. But to the Point in Hand, it is abſurd indeed to ſay that all Sinners have an actual diſcharge in themſelves from the Dominion of the Law immediately upon the Death of Chriſt, moſt being not then in Being in a Natural Senſe, much leſs in a Spiritual. But the Bp. knew well enough the diſtinction of the p. 27Proteſtants, that Redemption is conſidered in Impetration and Application; that though the Sacrifice and Propitiation of Chriſt was compleated and perfect in its ſelf, in its Nature, and to all intents and purpoſes, Juſtifying, and Pardoning, and Sanctifying Grace being fully treaſured up therein: Yet this Grace is not Applied, neither can it be Received actually by the Sinner, till, 1. He hath a Being Naturally. And, 2. Till he hath a Spiritual Being, whereto he is Created by the Spirit in Chriſt, and made capable of a Reception by a Spiritual Organ beſtowed on him. 2. He was not ignorant of this Queſtion lately diſputed, What is the immediate Effect of the Death of Chriſt? We ſay the great Effects of the Death of Chriſt, are two in General. 1. A Right to Life in Chriſt. 2. The Application, Reception, or Poſſeſſion of the Life purchaſed by Chriſt. The 1. We ſay is the immediate Effect of the Satisfaction and Purchaſe of Chriſt; all Redeemed Ones have a Right in Chriſt, i. e. latent and hid in Chriſt and his Fulneſs, even before they are or do Believe; from which Priſtine Fulneſs all received Grace doth flow; even Faith in it ſelf in us. 1. Being in the Soul, and acting on its Object; and thoſe that have this hidden Right a jus ad rem, yet they have not preſently jus in re; they have not yet received and poſſeſſed the Grace of Juſtification or Sanctification till they Believe through Grace, but are in themſelves under the Law, the Charge and Sentence thereof. This Doctrine I know Mr. B. Diſputes with all his might againſt, but was fully Anſwered by Dr. O.

§. 7. Another thing the Bp. Anſwers to, Is on the Nature of Guilt; that Guilt of a Sinner is moſt truly reatus culpae, and not reatus penae, reatus p. 28culpae, being that which is accounted Guilt in all Courts of Judicature.

To which he anſwers, there's a twofold Guilt to be conſidered.

1. Guilt of the Fact, as it is a Tranſgreſſion of the Law.

2. A Guilt conſequent to the Fact by Vertue of the Sanction of the Law. Thoſe which are the Foundation Aſſertions that the Bp. builds all upon, are two. 1. That Guilt which was charged on Chriſt was reatus penae, or Obligation to Puniſhment, not reatus culpae alicujus, not the Guilt of any Fault, or of any Perſon committing it. 2. He aſſerts that the Guilt of a Perſonal Fault can never be taken away by Tranſmiſſion, no, not by Pardon it ſelf: Hence we are neceſſitated to enter the Liſts with him upon theſe two great Points, though ſomething hath been ſaid before concerning them.

§. 8. We have ſhewed before, that the firſt diſtinction is between the Fact, and Guilt of the Fact: The Fact is meerly Phyſical, is inherent and inſeparable from the Agent, not transferrible at all, e. gr. The Act of borrowing Money is inherent in the borrower, and not a Tranſgreſſion of any Law; but to borrow and not to pay is a Tranſgreſſion of the Law enjoined by commutative Juſtice. Now this is the Guilt of the Fact, when the Fact ſtands as a Fault in the Eye of the Legiſlator by the preceptive part of the Law. 1. The firſt Relations of an irregular Action, is to the preceptive part of the Law, being Diſobedience. Hence it's a great miſtake to place the Sanction of the Law, only in its Obligation to Puniſhment; this is but a part of the Sanction conſequent to its Obligation to Obedience; therefore the p. 29primary guilt of a Sinner lies in Diſobedience, his Fact ſtanding in that Relation to the Law, it becomes formally the Reaſon why the Sinner is obliged to Puniſhment, he in the ſaid relation of the Fact deſerving it.

2. The Bp. is in the right, when he ſaith, That Obligation to Puniſhment is that which is in the Law, and only the expreſt Will of the Legiſlator; therefore it can in no true ſenſe be called the Guilt of the Sinner: And hence I muſt needs argue, that the Bp. placing all the Guilt charged upon Chriſt, in the Laws Obligation of him to Puniſhment, doth totally renounce the Doctrine of Chriſt's being made Sin for any Sinner: For if he was not made Guilty, but only Puniſhed, he bore only the Law's Obligation, which muſt be only the Sin of the Law, and not of the Sinner. But is the Law Sin? God forbid. Yet this Doctrine plainly makes the Law Sin, becauſe it obligeth a Perſon to Puniſhment who in no ſence deſerves it.

§. 9. For the overthrowing this Hypotheſis of Imputation of a Sinner's Guilt of Fact to Jeſus Chriſt, he examines how far guilt is ſeparable from the Act of Sin, p. 87.

1. As to the Guilt of the Fact; for he that hath been an actual tranſgreſſor can never be made not to have been ſo, and ſo the guilt of the Fact muſt remain.

A. But methinks a Bp. ſhould not impoſe ſuch a fallacy upon us, that every School-Boy can look through; I ſuppoſe becauſe he lookt upon us as Men very ſhallow, and of no penetration into matters. For though he that hath been an actual Tranſgreſſor cann't be ſaid not to have been, becauſe it's paſt, and cann't be made otherwiſe than that it p. 30hath been: Doth it follow from this, that therefore now he is a Tranſgreſſor. His Argument doth run thus, A Man hath been an Actual Tranſgreſſor, therefore now he is, and ever will be; a Man hath been actually Sick or Poor, and therefore he is ſo now, and ever will be. It's a truth unalterable that this or that thing hath been, but it follows not that therefore it's now, and always will be ſo. It is a truth that all the Saints in Heaven have been guilty of Sin, but are they therefore ſo now? Then Heaven is full of guilty Sinners. He alledges the abſurdity of making a Fact paſt, not to be paſt; there's none aſſerts it; but that the Law may be fully ſatisfied for the obliquity of Fact, we aſſert; and in that ſenſe God is ſaid to take away our tranſgreſſions; for what is the end of Chriſt's ſatisfaction in being a Sin-offering? Is it not to ſatisfie the Juſtice of God in a Law-ſenſe, for the exorbitancy of that Fact; for unleſs this obliquity be taken away before God, the Sinner muſt be bound over to Puniſhment: And hence no Fleſh could be ſaved, but all the World muſt remain Guilty, Unjuſtified, and Unpardon'd.

§. 10. He excepts againſt conſidering Sins as Debts, which, he ſaith, when once paid are no longer Debts; but there's difference between the guilt of a Fact, and contracting a Debt; for a Debt conſiſts in a thing real, whoſe property may be altered and transferred, but in criminal matters there's nothing capable of being transferred which is a thing real, but the obliquity and guilt of the Fact, is a privative and perſonal thing.

A. If Chriſt hath directed us to conſider of Sin as a Debt, ſuch conſideration is moſt regular and juſtifiable. 2. If Obedience be that which is due to the p. 31Law of God in the ſtricteſt conſideration of Juſtice, then Diſobedience is a Debt, erg. Sin is a Debt. 3. If a Debt be no more a real thing, (but a Privation) then other tranſgreſſions of the Law; then the obliquity may be transferred in one as well as in another; but it is ſo, Erg. For a Debt is a defect of Payment, and Privation of it; there's nothing but the Payment is real. 4. In criminal matters no wrong ſubject is capable to be Puniſhed in a way of Juſtice, but he that is guilty.

§. 11. He ſaith, the Deſert of Puniſhment which follows the tranſgreſſion, cannot be ſeparated from it.

A. That which is meer conſequent to a thing, may be ſeparated from the Eſſential Nature of the thing, at leaſt in Conſideration; but we have ſhewed that the Deſert of Puniſhment is in the formal Nature of Sin: For Sin as ſuch is made by the Law to deſerve Puniſhment, and that is abſolutely falſe if the Scripture be true which he ſaith, Let what Grace or Favour ſoever be ſhewed, the deſert of Puniſhment remains ſtill. A. 1. In Man's Proceedings, a Man that is Pardon'd is taken from deſert of Puniſhment; for it's a ſlander puniſhable to call a Pardon'd Thief a Thief; and the Law is ſilenced from dealing with himas ſuch, or calling him ſo: But here God's ways are not as Man's, when he Pardons he alſo Juſtifies: He provides as well for a full ſatisfaction of his Law, for the very obliquity and exorbitancy of the Fact. But he ſaith a Privation can't be transferred. A. It's, true a Phyſical privation can't, but a Moral may; and a Debt may by his own Conceſſion; but a Debt is a Privation of the Creditor's Money. I wonder an Eccleſiaſtical Man ſhould not know it as well as others, unleſs p. 32they call Men Debtors that owe them nothing. Again, the B. ſaith, No Sinner can deſerve that one that was not a Sinner ſhould ſuffer for his faults. A. It is true, no Sinner can deſerve that Chriſt ſhould ſuffer for him, no, nor any ordinary Principal Debtor can deſerve that any Man ſhould be his Surety; but another in kindneſs to him may put himſelf under Obligation to Pay, and Write himſelf Debtor in his ſtead; ſo tho' Sinners deſerved Puniſhment, yet not that Chriſt ſhould be Puniſhed for them; and therefore that Chriſt is puniſhed for their Sins, flows from the love of God, and kindneſs of the Lord Jeſus, from which he putting himſelf under Law-Proceedings, and Suffers in a way of Juſtice for Sin, i. e. taking upon him the Deſerts of Man's Sin. Bp Nor can the Law, or Act of any Perſon, transfer the deſert of Puniſhment from him that was the actual Tranſgreſſor. A. Here's miſerable Divinity, it's time ſure to come to our Litany, Lord have Mercy upon us. A. 1. Cann't a Law transfer a deſerved Puniſhment to another that fully ſatisfies it? Why doth any one fully ſatisfie the Law for another, but that the Law ſhould have nothing to ſay to him, to Charge or Accuſe him; which if ſo, his deſert is taken away. If a Child or Wife commit a great Theft, doth not the Guilt in Law fall on the Father or Husband; and is not the Perſonal Deſert taken away by the Father or Husband's ſatisfying the Law. 2. Can no Perſon? Cann't God transfer the Guilt? It's ſtrange that the Scripture ſhould be ſo miſtaken in ſaying Jehovah laid upon him the Iniquities of us all. All the Anſwers to this are ſo frivolous, that they are not worth our trouble of Anſwering them.

p. 33§. 12. B. The Turpitude as to the Act of Sin cann't be re moved from it. A. All theſe things being inſeparable, Sin remains in the beſt, yea, glorified Saints; for Perſonal Guilt remaining and a Turpitude inſeparable, as it muſt needs ſo long as Perſonal Guilt remains, there can be no Sanctified one on Earth or Heaven; for Guilt and Filth is permanent ever, never to be removed according to this Doctrine.

Bp Where-ever the Act of Sin is, it muſt be diſpleaſing to God, but the Turpitude, as it affects the Perſon of a Sinner, muſt have another conſideration. A. Is Sin diſpleaſing to God? And can the Sinner be pleaſing to him ſo long as he lies under the fault of Sin, the deſert and guilt thereof? For ſuppoſe he is taken off from Puniſhment, can he be received into favour with God? Doth God accept Sinners in all their Guilt and Turpitude? 2. I underſtand not how Turpitude of Sin, is diſtinguiſh'd from the Guilt of Sin, the ſaid Guilt being the Turpitude the Law finds, puniſheth for it, and condemns it, even in Man's Law: And although Sin carries an inherent Privation of good, and an internal pravity; yet there's none of this that hath not perſonal guilt in it which is foreign, and ſo far at leaſt was charged on Chriſt; and ſo far a believer waſhed in the Blood of Chriſt, is purged from all his Sins, and is perfectly Righteous in the ſight of God in Chriſt, (though not in himſelf,) notwithſtanding all the inherency of remaining corruption in him, after he is partaker of Regenerating and Sanctifying Grace.

Bp For God may ſee cauſe to forgive a Sinner, and receive him into favour, although he ſtill continues to hate and abhor the Sin. A. What cauſe can God have to forgive a Sinner, and receive p. 34him into favour, beſides his Free-Grace, and the Satisfaction of his Son which he hath made to his Juſtice, in bearing his Sin, and ſuffering for it? And this God doth, and yet hates and abhors Sin; for though Chriſt bore Sin, it was not in kindneſs to it, but to condemn it in his Fleſh: And though God loves and ſaves the Perſon of the Sinner, yet he always hated Sin, both of the Elect and Reprobate.

§ 13. Bp As to the Guilt of Sin, as it relates to Puniſhment, theſe things are to be conſidered. He ſhould have told us what Guilt of Sin he means, for obligation to Puniſhment, he told us is in the Law, not in the Delinquent, therefore his Guilt is not of Sin, but of the Law. I have not much to ſay to the three particulars, provided they be rightly meant, viz. 1. Although a Divine Juſtice require ſatisfaction for Sin, it is not neceſſary the actual Tranſgreſſors ſhould undergo the Puniſhment which they have deſerved. [i. e. if another undergo their deſerved Puniſhment by a ſubſtitution legally in their ſtead in regard of Deſert and Puniſhment] for then there would be no room for Grace and Favour [which is not ſhewed by God to any abſolutely in a diſpenſation, with Juſtice] but in ſuch a way as may glorifie Divine Juſtice. 2. That it is conſiſtent with the Wiſdom and Juſtice of God, to accept of a Mediator [ſuch an one as is a Surety] to interpoſe between the Severity of the Law, and the Puniſhment of the Tranſgreſſor, upon terms agreeable to Divine Wiſdom and Mercy. A. 1. The Mediator ought to be between God and Man, in reſpect of Sin eſpecially, the cauſe of Puniſhment; for it's Sin that's contrary to God's Law, Puniſhment of the Sinner is agreeable to p. 35God's Law. 2. He ſpeaks of terms upon which God accepted of a Mediator; I cannot underſtand what he means by it, for Chriſt's Mediatorſhip was the condition of God's acceptance of us. Chriſt, in reſpect of himſelf, was abſolutely accepted, not upon any previous conditions performed by him, or after-conditions to be performed by us: Which latter I find he intends. 3. That ſuch a Mediator undertaking to make Atonement for our Sins, by Suffering in our ſtead and Place, [as Sinners] may truly and properly be ſaid to undergo the Puniſhment of our Sins; and our Sins to be the Meritorious cauſe of it. [By no means in Suffering only upon an occaſional remote reaſon from Sin; but he muſt ſuffer judicially, taking upon him a Legal Charge of Merit and Deſert in the place and ſtead of the Sinner.

Now he ſeems to ſuſpect himſelf in this Doctrine of his to fall upon the Shelves of marvellous inconſiſtency, and therefore indeavours to foreſtall the following Objection.

If Deſert adhere to Perſonal Guilt, [inſeparably as before aſſerted] how can our Sins be the Meritorious cauſe of another's Puniſhment? The Argument againſt his Doctrine he can't Anſwer, for where there's no Guilt, there's no Deſert; and where there's no Deſert, there's no Puniſhment in legal Senſe. He riggles up and down under the preſſure of this Objection, but can't get it off.

I anſwer, that a meritorious cauſe may be conſidered two ways. 1. In a Natural Courſe of things; and ſo Deſert follows the Fact, ſo that the Sinner always deſerves Puniſhment, and no interpoſition, nor forgiveneſs, can take off the Deſert, &c. A. The ſubject Act to Sin is Natural, p. 36but the formal Nature of Sin, as Guilt, is Moral, as it ſtands in Relation to the Law: So that ſuppoſing that Ordine naturae, the Guilt or Deſert follows the Fact, yet it's not in a Phyſical courſe of things. 2. His after Aſſertion implies that no Sin is pardoned in and through the Satisfaction of Chriſt, that whether the Sin be Pardon'd in a way of Grace, or ſatisfied for in a way of Juſtice, the Sin remains in its full ſtrength upon the Sinner for ever; for he that deſerves Puniſhment doth ſo by the Law, for the ſtrength of Sin is the Law, and therefore muſt of neceſſity, for fear of Death, the Wages of Sin, be all the Day long ſubject unto Bondage; this is a ſad Goſpel.

2. He ſaith, As Deſert implies only a juſt reaſon of Puniſhment, and ſo there may be a Meritorious cauſe in extraordinary Caſes, when the Legiſlator conſents that another bear the Puniſhment which others have deſerved, Immerito quem que punire eſt injuſte punire, as Johnſ. out of Cret. Immerito is foreign, merito foreign & in Cic. Jure & merito, are moſt commonly put together. A. Here we have the cauſe given. The Queſtion is in plain terms, whether Chriſt Died merito for our Sins? He here plainly grants thoſe things, 1. That Deſert implies a juſt reaſon of Puniſhment; then I argue, if Chriſt was puniſhed juſtly, then he Died with a juſt reaſon thereof; and there can be no juſt reaſon of Puniſhment, but Deſert; and if this was on Chriſt, it came from Chriſt's own Perſonal Sins, or from ours: The Bp would not ſay from his, therefore from ours. 2. He grants there may be a meritorious Cauſe in extraordinary Caſes, when the Legiſlator conſents that another ſhall undergo the Puniſhment: What's that? 1. Was any p. 37Caſe more extraordinary than this we are ſpeaking of? 2. He muſt needs mean, that when the Legiſlator conſents that another ſhall undergo the Puniſhment, that then the ſaid Perſon ſo undergoing, ſtands under the Deſert of that Perſon for whom he is puniſhed. 3. He grants the truth, and none can deny it, that Immerito aliquem punire eſt injuſte punire, it is foreign punire ſine ratione in juditio. Nothing of Suffering can be reaſonable in Judicial Proceedings, unleſs there be a deſert, therefore he ſaith that Cic. puts jure & merito together. Now this is the Myſtery that the Bp is to reveal to ſhew how Chriſt was Puniſhed for a meritorious Cauſe, and yet ſtood not under any of our Perſonal Deſerts.

§. 14. He comes now to Anſwer what is ſaid for Chriſt's bearing our Perſonal Guilt; and the moſt that he ſaith is, to reſay what he ſaid before, and is ſufficiently Anſwered already; but to do him right, we will briefly weigh his ſtrength: The firſt is, The injuſtice of Puniſhing any immerito; this is the ſumm of it. His Anſwer lyes chiefly in aſſerting that this is the Socinian way of Arguing; and ſo we ſee the Antinomians join with the Socinians. But how the ſame way of Arguing? May not one and the ſame medium be uſed truly and falſly? How is it the ſame way of Arguing? Two Ships may Sail two contrary ways with one and the ſame Wind; but that Anſwer which overthrows the Socinian, muſt overthrow the Neonom. For the Poſition is true, and will be granted on all hands. The Queſtion between the Socin. and Antinom. is, whether Chriſt Died merito. No, ſaith the Socin. becauſe he was an innocent Perſon in himſelf: The Antinom. (as he calls in this, all Calviniſts) ſaith he Died merito; not upon the merits of his p. 38own Sins, but under the merits of ours, in whoſe ſtead he Died: Now comes in the Neonom. and ſays he was puniſhed, but not for any Perſonal Deſert of himſelf or ours. Let the Candid Reader judge now, who is the Socinian; this is enough to ſhew his unfairneſs in this matter; and what he talks after to this matter, is but repeating over and over what hath been brought to the teſt, and found very weak; but tells us ſtill, that what he ſaith is very agreeable to the Natural Senſe of Men's Minds, [he ſhould have ſaid to the Natural Man that knows little of the Spirit] if they would allow themſelves the liberty of thinking; [yea, of thinking themſelves out of Scripture or any rational Underſtanding] and therefore I am aware ſtill that Neon. are the moſt thinking Men in their own conceits in the World, though I find none more abuſive and unfair in Argumentation.

§. 15. Bp. But do we not by this means take away the proper Puniſhment of Chriſt for Sins, and ſo overthrow the Doctrine of Satisfaction. A. I ſay you certainly do. For, 1. How can you ſay Chriſt was properly Puniſhed, is it for ſuch thinking Men as you are? That any Puniſhment is proper Puniſhment, which is not deſerved Puniſhment. 2. How is it poſſible that you ſay, that that Puniſhment is Satisfactory to God's Law, which is not for the Sins which break the Law. But the Bp ſaith no, ☞ For I take away nothing but the Puniſhment that follows Perſonal Guilt, and if this be not taken away, the Antinom. Senſe muſt be allowed. A. Say you ſo, ſtand aſide all Proteſtants, your Houſe is coming down on your Heads: Well, we come upon this Dilemma, you muſt either deny p. 39that ever Chriſt bore any deſerved Puniſhment, or be Antinom.

I am ſorry to ſee that my late eſteemed Friend Mr. L. gave occaſion to ſuch rebukes which he hath received in the Anſwer to his Appeal; that in a fixed Enmity to Dr. C. he condemned Chriſt's bearing the Perſonal Guilt of our Sins, as falſe, blaſphemous, and impoſſible; whereas he declares it as the Opinion he contended for, That the Lord Jeſus Chriſt voluntarily, on the Father's invitation, coming under the Sanction of the violated Law, was juſtly charged with the Guilt of our Sin; found Guilty, Condemned, Sentenc'd, and Executed as ſuch, even by that God which laid on him the Iniquity of us all. Now the words of the Bp are theſe, If I do not miſunderſtand, both Dr. C. and you, you ſay as much in conſequence as he, — And therefore you cannot diſown the transferring Perſonal Guilt upon Chriſt. This he ſufficiently proves, and I cann't but ſubſcribe to the truth of the Biſhop's Judgment in this matter; for this is a fault and a great inconſiſtency, which I always diſliked, to inveigh againſt ſome as Erroneous, and yet ſaying thoſe very things which they ſpake.

For as the Bp ſaith, What Guilt of our Sins could be charged on Chriſt; if not the Perſonal Guilt? &c. See p. 28, 99, 100. I forbear repeating more in Honour to my Deceaſed Friend. It is good to own and defend truth as truth, without reſpect of Perſons.

§. 16. The ſecond propoſed by the Biſhop for Anſwer is,

That without this tranſlation of Perſonal Guilt, no advantage could come to us by Chriſt's Sufferings, p. 40becauſe a Man ſuffers only for his own fault, unleſs the fault of another be laid upon. The Argument hath great force in it: For, 1. Without tranſlation of our Guilt upon another, either a guilty Perſon muſt Die in his Guilt, i. e. in his Sins, or he muſt be abſolutely Pardon'd without ſatisfaction; in both theſe there can be no Benefit by Chriſt's Sufferings. 2. Another Perſon's Sufferings will not profit me, unleſs it be in my room or ſtead, and taken upon that Law-defect that belonged unto me. In Anſwer he ſaith, Here is no queſtion but our Iniquities were laid on Chriſt, and that he Suffered in our ſtead; but the Diſpute is about the manner how, whether our very Tranſgreſſions themſelves were laid upon him, and how it doth appear that we cann't receive the Benefits of Chriſt's Sufferings, unleſs that were done, which is ſuppos'd to be done. It is a great Argument with them, our Sins are Debts, and they are reckon'd to Chriſt as our Surety: To ſhew how little force there is in it, we need only theſe Conſiderations; 1. That there is no ſufficient ground for it in Scripture; as for that of Iſa. 53.6. there is not the leaſt ground for it in the Text; for the words properly ſignifie that he made our Iniquities meet, and to fall upon him, i. e. as a Man falls upon his Enemy when he meets him: So the Jewiſh Interpreters.

But doth this Man ſay enough to take off the force of this place of Scripture? 1. He tells us that the meaning is he made our Sins to meet upon him; the words are here, Jehovah made the Iniquities of us all to fall upon him, the word is, foreign what is that but Iniquity? Is it ever taken for Sacrifice for Sin? Who made them to meet? Jehovah the Legiſlator, God the Judge of all, and how p. 41can Iniquities of many meet on one Perſon? Can it be any way but judicially? As the Perſon is a Surety, chargeable, and charged with the guilt of many. But ſee what a Sence he would ſham off his Reader with. As a Man falls upon his Enemy when he meets him; he ſhould have ſaid, as many Enemies falls upon a Man when they meet him; for it was the Iniquities of many; but how could our Iniquities fall upon Chriſt to hurt him, if the Guilt of them fell not upon him? And why ſhould Jehovah make many Sins fall upon Chriſt? Was there any reaſon for it in Chriſt, or us, or in the Juſtice of God, to ſet ſuch Millions of Maſtiff Dogs on Jeſus Chriſt, on poor innocent Jeſus? Or what Deſign of Wiſdom was it, when thoſe Sins were neither to ſlay Chriſt, nor Chriſt to ſlay them? And this he tells us was the Jews and Symachus his Interpretation; he knew what Opinion the Jews were of concerning Chriſt, and this ſo eminent Propheſie of him; and he might have told us what his Friend Grotius's Opinion was about this place; but he acquaints us how the lxx render, He gave him up to our Iniquities; and is not that againſt him? How could Chriſt be given up to our Iniquities? But in bearing the deſerved Puniſhments of our Sins? And Procopius, he ſaith, expreſſeth it by foreign, is not this as a Surety? And yet he ſaith here is nothing like Suretiſhip to pay our Debts for us. Now if the Bp. had pleaſed to read out the Chapter, he might have ſeen two Verſes more, wherein this Truth is litterally expreſs; V. 11. He ſhall bear their Iniquities, foreign, he ſhall take their Iniquities as a Burden on his Shoulders to carry them away, as the Scape-Goat did the Iniquities of the Children of Iſrael: And the lxx renders p. 42it foreign, He ſhall take up their Iniquities upon him. And V. 12. foreign, He ſhall bear the Sin of many; ſhall the Spirit of God expreſs it ſelf to one thing ſo fully and plainly, and all fly away at the Puff of a Bp. as Chaff before the Wind? What is all that this learned Bp. hath ſaid to refute this Doctrine of Chriſt's bearing our Sins, and ſatisfying for them as our Debts to Divine Juſtice, but this? Here's nothing like Chriſt's Suretiſhip to pay our Debts for us, we will not take his Word for it, till he proves that Sin is not a Debt to the Law of God, when Chriſt hath told us it is. 2. Till he ſhews any other credible way of bearing another's Faults, beſides this way of Suretiſhip; till, 3dly, He ſhews and proves againſt the Apoſtle Peter, that there is no other way of paying Debts, on purchaſing or redeeming, than with plain Silver and Gold.

§. 17. He proceeds to ſhew us the great Harm of Chriſt's being a Surety to pay our Debts of Sin, p. 107. 1. Then Chriſt hath fully diſcharged our Debts already. This is one Miſchief of it, but God forbid it ſhould that Chriſt ſhould do Harm in paying any Man's Debts; but to do it by halves is to pay ſome only, and leave others for us to pay. How did he ſatisfie God's Juſtice if he gave not full Satisfaction? God forbid that Chriſt ſhould leave a Farthing for us to pay. 2. The ſecond Miſchief is, that we have nothing to do towards the Payment of our Debt; all that we have to do is to believe, and to be thankful; for all this Tranſaction was long ſince paſt without Conſideration of any Act on our parts. A. Is it a Harm that Chriſt hath done ſo much for us in way of Satisfaction and Purchaſe? that he hath left nothing of ours to put in for a p. 43Share in this Honour; no, not our believing it ſelf. I take it to be the Glory of Chriſt, and the bleſſed Priviledge of Believers, that he hath provided for Believers ſuch a Furniture of Grace, that they ſhall believe on him, bear his Image, walk in his Steps, to the Glory of his Name, in all Thankfulneſs, and new Obedience. The third Miſchief is, that it nulls all Faederal Conditions on our part: but of this, more afterward. 4. That we can't ſuffer for thoſe Sins that are already diſcharged. Is this ſuch a Harm? It's neither Reaſon or Juſtice that we ſhould pay a Debt to the Law which is already diſcharged; Chriſt hath born all the Sins of Believers in the deſerved Puniſhments thereof; hence the Sufferings of the Saints are not Penal, nor can be, but are Bleſſings for their Good, purchaſed by Chriſt for them.

§. 18. The Bp. ſaith, There's but one place of Scripture to be found to favour this Senſe of the Suretiſhip of Chriſt, viz. Heb. 7.22. It is eaſie to inſtance in many places that favour it, and prove it, it being, as I may ſay, the very Marrow of the Goſpel; but as to this place, it expreſly calls Chriſt a Surety; and it is the more remarkable, as to our preſent purpoſe, that as the Spirit of God hath called Sins Debts, and Chriſt's Suffering a Price paid, and expreſly excluding Payment by Silver or Gold, ſo Chriſt is called foreign, which, as Lexicog. ſay, doth primarily ſignifie a Surety for Money. Hence it appears, the Spirit of God makes much of the Metaphor, of Debt and Payment, to confirm our Faith in this, that there's no better account of the Nature of Sin, than a Debt to God's Juſtice; and no better account of the Sufferings of Chriſt, than that they were a Payment of this Debt to the Juſtice p. 44of God. And what if it be but in one place of Scripture? When a Truth is ſo fully and plainly expreſſed in one Text, it is enough; there are many Truths of great weight are ſo, beſides the marvellous Concurrence of other texts of Scripture, to the tenor thereof. But he ſaith, this text ſpeaks of a Covenant, not of the Surety of a Covenant. A. What is it that makes a Debt is not a Covenant, or compact? But it is of a better Covenant, i. e. a Surety to pay the Debts of the old Covenant of Works, but brought in by a better Covenant, the new Covenant, being a Covenant of Grace, anſwering the Ends of God's Grace more than the old, doing that which the old could not do to ſave Sinners by a Righteouſneſs which is not their own, but better, in that it hath a Surety that it brings in to engage unto God to pay all our Debts due to the Juſtice of God from us under the old Covenant, which had no Surety, Heb. 7.19. makes it better in nothing elſe but the bringing in a better Hope, viz. the Surety. But he poſitively denies that Chriſt was to pay our debts unto God. If ſo, what's the reaſon the Church prays, Forgive us our Debts, when God's way of Forgiveneſs of a Sinner, as aſſerted in Scripture, is by bringing in a Surety to pay his debts of Sin, Col. 1.14. In whom we have Redemption thro' his Blood, even the Forgiveneſs of Sins.

But what a Surety is it that he will have Chriſt to be? Sure it is the ſame the Socinians will have to be only, i. e. a Surety to engage for God to us, not for us to God, but a Surety only for the Truth and Faithfulneſs of God in his Promiſes. See his Words, p. 110.

§. 18. The Bp. takes notice of ſome diſſenting Brethren, (he might better ſaid of Proteſtants diſſenting p. 45from the Church of Rome, who talk much of Surety, Righteouſneſs, — and of Chriſt's being our Surety as to the Payment of our Debts, becauſe the Debtor may be ſaid to pay the Sum the Surety lays down for him, and that God doth account that Believers do pay that Debt of Obedience, which Chriſt hath paid in their Stead, becauſe they are a legal Perſon with Chriſt, and all this depends upon this miſtaken Notion of Suretiſhip.

A. It is very ſad that ſo plain Scripture ſhould corrupt our Minds with miſtaken Notions, how ſhall we know we are miſtaken or not in any then? Or that we do know the Mind of the Spirit in them, if when we have a plain text, expreſſing a Truth according to the plain and undeniable Sence of other texts of Scripture, not only agreeing with, but eſſential to the Analogy of Faith? If we muſt look on this received Doctrine to be a miſtaken Notion, then ſurely notwithſtanding the Revelation that God hath given us in his Word, he hath left us under Chymerian Darkneſs, and inextricable Laborinths in the great Points of Life and Salvation; but what hath he to ſay againſt this received Doctrine by the diſſenting Brethren, and all true Proteſtants? If once it be ſuppoſed that we perfectly obeyed the Law in Chriſt, there can be no room for Remiſſion of Sins; for how can Sins be forgiven to them that have obeyed the Law?

I cannot anſwer this Argument better than in the very Words of Mr. R. Capel, (whom none I ſuppoſe will call an Antinom.) in Vindication of Dr. Twiſs, on this Point. There is a double Acception of the Term Remiſſion of Sins. 1. There is a meritorious Juſtification, or Remiſſion of Sins, this is of Sins before they are committed. 2. There's an p. 46actual Juſtification or Remiſſion of Sin; and this is not till after our Sin is committed, and we do believe all this, none of theſe Exceptors do or can queſtion. Thoſe that lean much to the Doctrine of Arminius and Vortius in this point, may ſee all this expreſſed in clear terms by Vortius. So that it is one thing for all the Sins of all the Elect to be pardoned to Chriſt for them, that was done before we were, or our Sins were; another thing to be pardoned to them; Chriſt was made a Curſe for us by Imputation; for that the Father did impute all our Sins as a Judge, to Chriſt as a Surety, and did exact all of him as guilty by that Law — and this is (I conceive) all the meaning of Dr. Twiſs, and is, or at leaſt ought to be, the meaning of us all; and this a learned Man calls a myſtical Juſtification, becauſe all the Sins of all the Elect are as laid upon Chriſt, ſo remitted unto Chriſt, our Head and Husband; which Pardon and Abſolution he took in our Name, and keeps for our Uſe.—See Capel of Repentance, p. 257, 258. For Brevity-ſake I ſhall add nothing further to the Anſwer of this Argument of the Bp.

§. 19. He adds, It doth not follow, becauſe a Debt may be transferred to a Surety; that our Sins may be transferred to Chriſt; and his Reaſons are, 1. Becauſe Sins cannot be transferred as Money. A. But doth not the Spirit of God ſufficiently acquaint us, that it's a moral Debt, Sin is the Debt, our owing, and not paying Obedience to the Law; and that Chriſt paid not Silver and Gold, but his Precious Blood; but he ſaith, That altho' the Sinner be ſaid to owe a Debt to the Law, yet that Debt lyes in an Obligation to Puniſhment, which he is liable to by the Guilt of the Fact. p. 47A. Now he owns the Sinner owes a Debt to the Law; but that's not Obedience, but Puniſhment: But believe it, Puniſhment is the Debt of the Law to the Sinner, the Wages of Sin (by the Law) is Death: But that whereby the Sinner becomes a Debtor to the Law, is his Failure, in giving due Obedience to the Preceptive Part of the Law; for its Obedience the Law doth naturally and primarily enjoin and expect from the Subject. Puniſhment may be transferred by the Legiſlator's Conſent. A. Puniſhment without Merit is but ſuffering, and not legally inflicted, and can't be done by a Legiſlator without Diſpenſing with his Law.

Object. This Debt ariſeth from Guilt of Fact, how then can any diſcharge the Debt, without taking the fault? I anſwer, That taking the fault can ſignifie no more than being anſwerable to the Law for it, which muſt reſpect the Debt of Puniſhment. Reader, But doth not this quite overthrow all the Bp. hath been doing? For if Puniſhment (as always it is) be anſwering the Law for Sin, this always implies that the puniſhed Perſon bears the juſt Demerit of his Sin, elſe why do the Law inflict Puniſhment? It's not becauſe that Man hath not obeyed, but diſobeyed; wherein the Puniſhed is only paſſive in ſuffering, tho' active in contracting the Guilt, wherein lyes the Demerit of Puniſhment, and makes the Wages due from the Law; — And he that takes away the Guilt of Puniſhment, doth ſatisfie the Juſtice of the Law. A. The ſatisfying the Juſtice of the Law lyes in inflicting deſerved Puniſhment; for Guilt is not in the Law, as the Bp. hath ſaid, but in a Perſon whom the Law hath found guilty; therefore the Law is not ſatisfied, by afflicting in general, but afflicting p. 48ſome Perſon that is found guilty and faulty by the Law.

As to the Objection, That nothing is the Merit of Puniſhment but Reatrus culpae, he anſwers ſo little, that it's not worth our Cognizance; and that little is but a Rehearſal of what hath been replied to already.

§. 20. Bp. Suppoſe the Fault could be transferred, as a Debt may, how comes it to paſs that upon this Tranſlation there muſt be a preſent Diſcharge? A. There muſt be ſuch to him that pays the Debt, and this given to him for the Benefit and Uſe of the Priſoner when he will pleaſe to give it. Chriſt muſt be juſtified from our Sins, and diſcharged, or elſe not raiſed from bearing them; when he had ſatisfied Juſtice, all our Sins were pardoned to him; but another Act of Grace is ſhewed, in bringing home, and applying Pardon to; and therefore for diſcharging us from the Law as Priſoners of Hope, thro' what Chriſt hath fully done and ſuffered.

B. This Doctrine tends to incourage Men to neglect, or careleſs Performance of ſtrict Obedience, which they owe to God. A. This is the Objection againſt the Doctrine of the Grace of God, which Enemies to it made, and the Apoſtle Paul anſwers, Rom. 6. But the Bp. will not take his Anſwer; there he ſaith it naturally diſpoſeth Men's Minds to a paſſive careleſs Temper, and wait for Supplies from above. A. The Grace of God never enclines the Heart to ſo ill a Temper, but quite contrary, Tit. 2.11, 12. It is one thing, what a Man is by Nature, and what by Grace; Men by Nature are naturally enclined to abuſe the Grace of God, but are not ſo by effectual Grace.

p. 49Bp.— They depend upon Gord's working in them, to will and to do of his own good Pleaſure, without ſetting themſelves to work out their own Salvation with fear and trembling. A. The Bp. ſhould have known that the Abuſe of the Grace of God is no juſt Argument againſt it; and if ſome Men do ſo, will he cenſure all as ſuch? God's working in Men to will and to do, and their working out their own Salvation, are not Contradictions, if rightly underſtood; but to ſhew us that the Grace of God is firſt in all we do, that teacheth and worketh in us to work, both to begin and continue to ſerve God with all our Might; but with Fear, leſt we ſhould give the Glory of all unto our ſelves in leaning and depending on our own Strength. The Bp. might have ſpared the reſt of his Banter, it's not worth Paper and Ink to ſpend about it.

§. 21. He makes a great Clutter againſt the diſſenting Brethren, as if in their Doctrine of the Free Grace of God, they would allow no Conditions upon any Account; and ſaith, here is ſomething beyond meer Gratitude and Service, and what's that? It's a Connexion in away of Duty, and Means in order to the end, and not meer Connexion in a way of Event ſo that thoſe to whom God will give Glory, he will give Grace to fit Perſons for it. A. Hereby it's eaſie to ſee what ſtrange Monſters the Oppoſers of the Doctrine of Chriſt do ignorantly or maliciouſly repreſent the Profeſſors and Defenders thereof to be. Do they deny a firm Connexion between Grace and Glory? Do they deny the Neceſſity of Holineſs? Indeed not as a Faederal Condition of Happineſs, but a Condition of neceſſary Connexion; and as he gallops along, he is pleaſed to fall upon ſome Expreſſions of mine. Some may perhaps ſay, What is't but to p. 50make that Promiſe to ſecure Life upon doing of our Duties? And if this be not to make the Goſpel a more overgrown and ſwinging Covenant of Works, than ever the old Law was, I have loſt, [not they] my Theological Meaſures, Neonom. p. 3, and 296. Reader, Upon theſe few quoted Lines, pick'd up at a diſtance, not truly quoted neither, he makes a large Harangue about Theological Meaſures, (which Words I applied not to any but to my ſelf) and ſay [they] The Standard of Theological Meaſures is the Scripture. And ſo I ſay. And ſaith he, St. Paul was as little ſuſpected of ſetting up a Covenant of Works, as any Penman in the New Teſtament. I think ſo too. But he hath ſaid, 2 Tim. 1.19. God hath ſaved us, and called us with an holy Calling, not according to our Works, &c. I ſubſcribe to the Apoſtles Doctrine heartily, and it's expreſly againſt the Bp's Doctrine, who would have our Works the Foederal Condition of the Covenant of Grace, when the Apoſtle ſays, who hath called us not according to our Works; and what is the Genuine Meaning thereof, but that tho' God hath called us to Holineſs, yet it's not according to our Works, as a Covenant Condition thereof, ſo Tit. 3.5. but it's the manner of theſe Men to quote Places for themſelves, which are Diametrically oppoſite to them? He makes a needleſs Sputter about working out of our Salvation, and ſaith we are told, Neon. part 3. and 296. No more is meant by this than a continual maintaining a holy Jealouſie of our ſelves, leſt we ſhould fail of the Grace of God, by truſting in our ſelves, &c. Now doth it become a Bp. to be ſo falſe, in repreſenting what he would expoſe; there's not a word of, No more is meant by this, but that this is meant, it may contain more; but this is every Believer's Duty laboriouſly p. 51to continue in all ways of Holineſs and new Obedience, but fear and tremble in Suſpicion of his corrupt Heart, which is apt to make his Obedience Hay and Stubble, in aſcribing it to his own Strength, and in making it his Righteouſneſs for his Juſtification; and if any will rationally argue againſt this Doctrine; I am ready to defend it, as I am other Truths, which I have aſſerted that ſome have ſnarl'd and banter'd at, but have not made any fair ſhew of proving them Errors; and till they do that, I ſhall not honour them ſo far, as to blot Paper about them.

§. 22. What remains is only to draw odious Conſequences upon this Doctrine of laying our Sins on Chriſt, or his bearing the deſert of Puniſhment for our Sins. 1. There's nothing for us to do, but only to ſit ſtill, and expect when God will work in us. A. Doth the Text ſay we muſt ſit ſtill? Doth any one ſay ſo? But the Scripture ſaith, and the Saints have practiced, to be continually waiting upon God in the Prayer, and all the means of Grace, to work in them, to will and to do; and as God works it in them, he works them to it, knowing that of themſelves they are not able to think a good Thought; but herein being enabled by Divine Aſſiſtance to do a good Work, they muſt keep a Watch over their own Hearts, that they rob not God of the Glory of his Efficiency, and take it to themſelves. Bp. Paul gives another Senſe when he perſwades rich Men to do Good, 1 Tim. 6.18. How another Senſe? Doth not the Grace of God perſwade and teach Men to do good Works? Doth not the ſame Apoſtle tell us; that the Grace of God, that brings Salvation, teach Men to deny Ungodlineſs, and to live holily, &c. Again, Is laying hold of Eternal Life by p. 52good Works a ſwingeing Covenant of Works? No, who ſaid ſo? But there's a twofold laying hold of a thing; one is by way of Right; that is, not in our Works themſelves, but in Chriſt; and a laying hold by way of Participation and Poſſeſſion; that is, an effect of the Covenant right in Chriſt; and ſo all Believers by the exerciſe of Faith and Holineſs, are continually maintaining their hold of Chriſt and Eternal Life, given them in Chriſt; and the Theological Meaſure holds here, that Paul hath not by this Text thrown down what he taught of the Efficacy of the Grace of God, but only proſecutes that Doctrine; that where it brings Salvation, it teacheth Men to do good Works; therefore he exhorts Timothy to teach by the Word what God's Grace works by the Word and Spirit, neither doth he accommodate himſelf to rich Men, as if he intended they ſhould be ſaved in a Covenant of Works, which would be no better than Bargain and Sale of Eternal Life.

Bp. — The Foundation of the Covenant it ſelf was certainly nothing but the Grace of God thro' Chriſt. A. Foundation here's very ambiguous; I know the Neonom. and Papiſts, and all will ſay ſo, when they ſay Chriſt purchaſed the Covenant of Grace, i. e. the new Law, and deny him to be the Condition of it; and therefore he ſpeaks always in their Dialect cunningly; — yea, and the Foundation of our Hopes as to our obtaining the Benefits. A. If ſo then, how is Chriſt the Foundation of ſuch Hopes? Is it not Chriſt believed in, as the great Obtainer of Right to Eternal Life, and the great Beſtower of effectual Grace; for without this Faith there can be no Hope, nor any purifying our ſelf, as he is pure.

p. 53§. 23.—Not as Works meritorious of a Reward, [ſo ſay the Socinians too] but as Means which God hath appointed in order to an end. A. I pray who denies all this of the Calveniſts? All which he calls Antin. but doth he not trip up his own Heels by this Conceſſion? I ſay, and I am ſure can prove, that the Condition of a Covenant compact, let the thing required be little or more, it's meritorious of the covenant Reward promiſed, and is meritum expacto; now then if he concede that our Works are not meritorious of a Reward, he gives us all we contend for, provided he yeild that the Condition of a Covenant compact is meritorious of the Reward, which all Men of Senſe will acknowledge; well then, what Place [after all this noiſe] is Works to have? He ſaith, They are only Means which God hath appointed in order to an end. A. If this be rightly meant, we will grant it, and yet hold our Aſſertion untouch'd; for tho' all Foederal Conditions are Means, yet all Means are not Covenant Conditions; antecedent things are Means of coming to conſequent, but not always Foederal Conditions. Now if he will ſay eternal Life is that end, I will ſay more, that he hath not Eternal Life who hath not ſuch a Faith, which hath its Fruits unto Holineſs; and that this Holy Life belongs to, and is that Eternal Life begun in us. Bp. As a Son that hath an Eſtate promiſed him of the free Gift of his Father, but yet he requires ſome Conditions to be performed by him before he comes to the Poſſeſſion of it; can any one think this to be Bargain and Sale between Father and Son. A. The Compariſon is too ſhort to illuſtrate, much leſs to prove the thing. For, 1. In this the Father will not enjoin any Conditions but ſuch as the Son hath Ability to perform. As for Example; He will not enjoin p. 54a poor lame Cripple to leap over a Hedge firſt, nor a Stone-blind illiterate Son to read a Chapter in the Hebrew Bible. Now to ſay that our Caſe runs parallel, it's falſe; for if God promiſe Eternal Life upon the condition of our good Works, who are dead in Treſpaſſes and Sins, it's to do it on an unperformable condition; which becometh not the Wiſdom of God. 2. And he ſaith, Can any one think this to be Bargain and Sale? A. Yes ſure, there are ſuch Fools in the World. If all be ſo who believe not as the Bp. ſaith, I would ask the Bp. if his Father ſhould tell him, Child, if thou wilt reſign up thy Biſhoprick of Worceſter to thy Brother, I will give thee the Biſhoprick of Durham, would not the Bp. demand the Biſhoprick of Durham as due to him from his Father upon his Reſignation, let the Father be Pater Patriae, the King, or any other?

§. 24. Now he ſaith, If theſe be Theological Meaſures, they had need to ſeek for new ones. No ſure, for the Bp. hath ſaved us that Labour, he hath found them for us; but ſuch as are but Traſh by the Standard of Scripture and Reaſon. Now he reckons he hath paid off Theological Meaſures, but faith, he hath not yet done with them. Sure we may moſt ſafely take our Theological Meaſures from our Saviour, [yes ſurely, there's no doubt of it] for he knew beſt how far, and in what Senſe the Guilt of our Sins was transferred upon him, and whether there followed an immediate Diſcharge upon it, without regard to Conditions on our parts; the Queſtion of the higheſt Import being put to him, what ſhall I do to inherit Eternal Life? A. Where lyes the Force of this Argument? It muſt be here: If Chriſt had this Queſtion twice put to him, What ſhall I do to inherit Eternal Life? And his Anſwer was, Keep p. 55the Commandments, and thou ſhalt live; then the Guilt of our Sins were not laid on Chriſt [non ſequitur] ſo he ſaith, as to him, Luke 10.25, 28. Had our Saviour only a mind to banter him? No, what was it then? He himſelf tells us, It was to convince him of the Impoſſibility of his doing what was neceſſary for Eternal Life. He ſhould have added under the Covenant of Works; and therefore of performing a Covenant Condition anſwerable to the Covenant of Works, whereby the Jews expected a merited Reward, they ſought Life by the Righteouſneſs of the Law; and he acknowledgeth, That it is not improbable that our Lord intended to convince him of his Folly, who ſuppoſeth he had kept thoſe Commandments in the Jewiſh Sence of them. And this is the true meaning of the Text, why therefore is this Text brought to prove that Chriſt bore not the Guilt of Sins? Baculus ſtat in Angulo ergo pluit. There's as iittle conſequence from the other, Mark 10.17. The ſame or like Anſwer may ſerve, which he ſuggeſts himſelf. There was an immoderate Love to the World in his Heart, which he was not aware of till our Saviour put him upon a ſevere Trial of himſelf, Go ſell what thou haſt, &c. Upon this Trial he ſhewed himſelf, and went away ſorrowful, notwithſtanding all his ſeeming Deſire for Heaven, this was the true Reaſon, and no other; and Chriſt intended not thereby to eſtabliſh a Covenant of Works; and what he ſaith after is to little purpoſe; it's only to wreſt the Senſe of a Text from what he thought in his Conſcience it would bear. And ſo Luke 16.9. Make to your ſelf Friends of the Mammon. What, doth he ſay of that? Not by way of Merit, or any fooliſh Imagination of that ſort, but in Obedience to the Will of God, who hath p. 56made it a neceſſary Duty. Do they ſpeak otherwiſe who hold Chriſt bore their Perſonal Guilt? I wonder a Bp. ſhould trifle ſo ſhamefully. Again, he ſaith, If theſe be Theological Meaſures, what doth our Saviour mean, when he ſaith, Luke 13.24. Strive to enter? &c. A. He means, not that he did not bear the Guilt of Sin, or any ſhould ſtrive in his own Strength, or ſtrive as a Foederal Condition; for he ſaith, Many ſhall ſtrive, [i. e. falſly in ſuch a manner,] and ſhall not be able; and who interprets ſtriving here, of faint and weak Endeavours? Certainly he would render all them that holds that Chriſt bore the Guilt of Sin to be a pitiful ſort of Chriſtians, that have little or no regard to the Command of Chriſt. Sure, if they were ſo, they would not many of them ſo joyfully have ſuffered the ſpoiling of their Goods by the Biſhops in the late time of Perſecution; and what led them to it but a Conſcience of Obedience to the Commands of Chriſt?

He ſaith, One would think it impoſſible to enter into a Man's Head, to ſuppoſe that a Man's own Righteouſneſs ſhould be excluded from being conjunct with the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, if he look to V. 21, and 24. A. Chriſt doth not in the leaſt oppoſe Man's Righteouſneſs to his, nor make it conjunct with his, but gives only a Character of ſuch as be ſincere Believers and Profeſſors of his Name, and will be found ſo at the laſt Day.

What he ſays of immediate Diſcharge hath been ſpoken to before, that the immediate Effect of Chriſt's Death was a Right to a Diſcharge; the Diſcharge it ſelf could not be before they have a Natural and Spiritual Being.

p. 57§. 25. Bp. If there be no condition, how can they be ſatisfied that the Guilt of their Sins are laid on Chriſt? A. In anſwer to this it's ſaid, believe with all thy Heart, &c. that muſt be a real receiving of Chriſt: He that hath the Son hath Life, 1 John 5.11, 12. The Sinner firſt receives Chriſt, after ſees and knows he hath received Chriſt himſelf, V. 13, and 20. And we own there may be preſumption, where there's an appearance of believing and knowing, only there need not be ſuch ſputter as he makes about theſe matters, neither doth it profit his cauſe.

Object. But while we were Sinners Chriſt Died for us; ſo ſaith the Apoſtle, Rom. 5. and others after him: Two things thereby ſignified, 1. That Chriſt Died for us under that Conſideration, for he came not to Save thoſe that are Righteous, but thoſe that were Sinners. 2. That it was long ago that Chriſt Died while we were in the firſt Adam, and in an unregenerate ſtate, Sinners of the Gentiles; to which he rejoins thus, How then muſt every Sinner believe that Chriſt Died for him? A. Every Sinner under the Call of the Goſpel, is to believe in Chriſt for Life and Salvation, according to the conſtant tenor of the Goſpel; but to know Chriſt did bear his Sins, and die for him, reſults from this Believing. He that hath the Son, i. e. by believing, hath Life. Receiving is firſt before knowing that a Man hath Received; and it is Goſpel truth, that Chriſt bore the Sins of every one that truly believes; and every one is an Elect Perſon, whoſe Sins Chriſt bore: For if the Apoſtle ſpake true, he that makes ſure his Calling, makes ſure his Election. — Then ſaith the Bp. here is Univerſal Redemption aſſerted in its full extent; and what is more, here is Univerſal p. 58Election too; if all Men can believe that their Sins are forgiven. A. Let us examine the Bp's fallacious Arguing. 1. The Goſpel is indefinitely preached to all under the Call thereof, and directed to all Sinners without any exception; he that believes on the Lord Jeſus, ſhall be ſaved; is this an Argument that Redemption is Univerſal, or that all are Saved, or Elected: It's ſaid as many as were Ordained unto Life believed, therefore it cann't be ſaid that every one doth or can believe, John 12.39. 2. See how foully this Man impoſeth by charging his oppoſites with ſaying, That all Men can believe that their Sins are forgiven, p. 133. or to charge this, as p. 132. That a Man's Sins are forgiven becauſe he believes that they are forgiven, being laid on Chriſt; whereas a Man believes becauſe his Sins are forgiven and laid on Chriſt; for Chriſt bearing our Sin is the Cauſe of believing, and not the Effect. — At leaſt conditional Election follows upon it he ſaith. We ſee he ſuſpected his firſt conſequence, and therefore poacheth in another. This may ſerve for a Profeſſed Armin. but the Bp. I ſuppoſe would not have been accounted ſo; the Argument is, becauſe Men are Saved in and by believing on the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, therefore Election is upon foreſight of Faith; but we ſay Men are as abſolutely Elected unto Faith as unto Glory: The controverſie of Conditional Election is not here to be entered upon, but we aſſert that it follows more upon the Bp's Hypotheſis than ours.

§. 26. He adds, its ground enough of preſumption as to all ſuch as can believe that their Sins are forgiven. A. Thoſe that can believe their Sins are forgiven, can believe through the Grace of God working it; nay, they have attained to a great meaſure p. 59of Grace; How doth preſumption conſiſt with, can Believe?

B. What can hinder any Man more from Repentance, and forſaking his Sins, than to be told that the firſt Act of Saving Faith, is to believe his Sins is forgiven?

R. Where is any one that will teach an Unbeliever, to Believe his Sins are forgiven in the ſtate of Unbelief? But we find the Voice of the Goſpel to the Unbeliever, is to invite and call him to believe the Goſpel; which ſaith, that this is a Saying worthy of all acceptation, That Chriſt came into the World to ſave Sinners; that he bore Man's Sin, and was made Sin and Curſe for them, and that the Sinner ſhould come in particular and apply himſelf to Chriſt for this Pardon and Forgiveneſs that is in Chriſt; for with him is Pardon and Plentiful Redemption. He is a Fountain opened for Sin and Uncleanneſs, and if a Fountain, then not an empty Object of Faith, but full of Pardon, and of all the Grounds and Reaſons of a Sinner's Faith and Hope. Now how doth ſuch coming to Chriſt, and cloſing with him in a free Promiſe, hinder Repentance, and embolden them unto Sin? For the Apoſtle ſaith, Sin ſhall not have Dominion over you, becauſe you are under the Grace of God in the Promiſe; and he ſhews Sin will reign over a Man while he is under the Law.

— But the Goſpel Preacheth Repentance in order to Remiſſion.

R. It Preacheth Repentance and Remiſſion, to ſhew, that where there is Repentance to Life there is Remiſſion; and where there is Remiſſion received by Faith, there will be Repentance in a Believing, coming to God through Chriſt. The Soul cann't turn from Sin to God, but by a believing p. 60Repentance, neither can any Repentance be unto Life, unleſs it be a turning from Sin to God thro' Jeſus Chriſt. Hence Faith and Repentance are frequently put for one another, or in one the other included. When the Scripture ſpeaks of the firſt Act of the Sinners coming unto God, yea, not only the firſt act of true Faith, but all other are inſeparable from Repentance, as from other Graces, Love, Hope, &c. Though both Repentance, Love, and Hope, are diſtinct Graces and Fruits of the Spirit from Faith, and from each other. This, laſtly, I affirm, as the truth of the Goſpel, that there can be no true Repentance antecedent in Nature to true Faith, Faith being the firſt effect of Spiritual Life in one that is effectually called. Bp Repentance is commanded, and Baptiſm commanded, therefore they are conditions. R. The Antecedent is true, but the conſequence follows not, if he meant new Covenant Conditions. For all things, and Duties Commanded are not therefore foederal Conditions: For that Grace which God works by his Word and Spirit, is very abſurdly called a Condition of a Covenant that God makes with a Sinner. But obſerve, he makes Repentance ſuch a condition as Baptiſm; if ſo, what inſeparable connection is there (as there ſhould be in this Caſe) between the condition and promiſe; for will any ſay that he that is not Baptized ſhall be Damn'd? The Scripture ſaith not ſo, beſides the Seal of a Bond is not the Condition of the Obligation, but only a Ratification.