Neonomianism Unmasked, Part 2 · Debate 6
DEBATE VI. Of God's Separation and Abhorrence of Chriſt while our Sins lay upon him.
Neonom.
I Shall acquaint you with an Errour of a groſs nature that Mr. Antinomian is guilty of, and it is this;
Errour.
Chriſt was on the Account of the filthineſs of Sin, while they lay upon him, ſeparate from God, odious to him, and even the object of God's Abhorrence, and this to the Time of his Reſurrection. D. W. p. 31.
Antinom.
I pray Sir let us ſee how far this great Errour of your own forging is Chargeable upon me.
Neonom.
I will acquaint theſe Gentlemen with what you delivered; you ſaid, Nay, for this I affirm, as Chriſt did bear our Iniquities, ſo Chriſt for that Iniquity was ſeparated from God, and God was here ſeparated from Chriſt, or elſe Chriſt ſpake Ʋntruth. Dr. C. p. 294.
Antinom.
Take my words as they were. Object. Iniquity cannot be laid on Chriſt, becauſe it ſeparateth from God; but Chriſt could not be ſeparated from God. A. This Objection makes it moſt manifeſt that Chriſt did bear Iniquity; becauſe in that bearing of Sins there was a ſeparation from God, or elſe Chriſt's Words were not true, My God, my God, why haſt thou forſaken me? for where Iniquity is, there will be a ſeparation from God.
And my Argument ſtands thus, Where there is a forſaking of God, there is a ſeparation from God in the ſenſe of ſins ſeparation from God; but in Chriſt's bearing Sin there was a forſaking of God; Ergo.
Object. It may be this forſaking was but for a little moment. A. It was as long as Sin was upon him, had not Chriſt breathed out the Sins of Men that were upon him, he had never ſeen God again; he having taken Sin upon him, he muſt firſt unload himſelf of Sin before he could be brought near to God; therefore you find that paſſage in the Pſalm 2. Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee, Expounded by the Apoſtle of the Reſurrection of Chriſt, Acts 13.33. As if the Lord at the Reſurrection of Chriſt did beget his Son a new as it were; there was a ſeparation and forſaking when Chriſt dyed, but at the Reſurrection there was a meeting again, a kind of renewing of Sonſhip with God; therefore Rom. 8. the Apoſtle ſaith, It is Chriſt that dyed, yea, rather that is riſen again from the Dead, and ſits at God's Right Hand; and what doth he inferr from thence? Who ſhall lay any thing to the Charge of God's Elect, i. e. till Chriſt himſelf came off from Mens Sins, Men were in danger of being Charged with Sin, but Chriſt hath dyed and made ſatisfaction, nay, rather is riſen again, and hath his Diſcharge, &c. p. 295.
And I pray, Gentlemen, wherein is this Doctrine contrary to the Scriptures, or Reaſon guided by the Word of God.
Neonom.
You ſay, It it a higher Expreſſion of Love that Chriſt ſhould bear the Sins of Men, than that he ſhould be given to die for Men, &c. D. C. p. 408.
Antinom.
My reaſon of that Aſſertion was added, for Chriſt to be given to die, comes ſhort of the Love he expreſſeth in bearing Sin; Affliction is not contrary to the Nature of God, &c. but Sin is; where God doth Charge any Sinner he hath an Abhorrence there; i. e. ſo far as God chargeth and ſeeth Sin.
I ſaid, God never did do ſuch a wonderful thing to the Aſtoniſhment of the Creature, as laying Sin on Chriſt; Iniquity is the hatefulleſt thing in the World to God, [therefore the Sin charged is abhorred by God] where Iniquity is found, a Toad is not ſo ugly unto Man, as that Perſon is in the ſight of God, where Iniquity is found — Sin is the moſt horrible and abominable, nay, the moſt abhorred thing in the World to God. That this is ſo the whole Scripture bear me witneſs; but obſerve what follows — That God ſhould make Chriſt to be Sin, is out of the reach of all the Creatures in the World to apprehend how God ſhould do it, and yet that he ſhould retain his own Power, by Love, and reſpect to his Son, p. 180. Now as there was an Abhorrence of Sin charged on Chriſt, yet, and accordingly a Separation or forſaking upon that Account, ſo far as he bore Sin in his Humane Nature; yet God did retain that Love and Reſpect to him as his Son: Neither do I ſay, that Chriſt in his Humane Nature was ſeparated from the Divine by a Diſſolution of his Hypoſtatical Union: And therefore it's a falſe Charge to ſay I ſaid, God abhorrtd the Perſon of his Son, or that there was a Separation between the Divine and Humane Natures of Chriſt. D.W. p. 33.
Neonom.
You ſay, Christ was ſeparated from God, which you affirm and I deny.
Anſw. If you underſtand me according to the Language of the Scripture and Analogy of Faith, I ſay ſo. i. e. As Sin brings inevitably the Puniſhment of Loſs as the Curſe, and the greateſt part of it, which is a Judicial Separation of God from the Creature; this I affirm, Chriſt ſuffered this Puniſhment in his Soul. But if you will wreſt my meaning to be this, that he was ſeparated by a Diſſolution of the Hypoſtatical Union, I deny it. I ſay, Should Iniquity be laid on the Humane Nature, and the Divine Nature not ſupport it, it would have ſunk under Sin, as a meer Humane Creature. D. Cr. p. 378. Therefore it's apparent I intended no ſuch Separation, (as alſo by my whole Diſcourſe it appears) that you would impoſe upon me.
Neonom.
The Queſtion is, Whether Chriſt was at any time under God's Abhorrency, or odious to him, becauſe under the Loathſomneſs of Sin? This you affirm, and I deny.
Antinom.
That I affirm it in your Sence, is falſe; for you know I ſaid in expreſs Terms, that God retained his Love and Reſpect to his Son: For it's not inconſiſtent, that God ſhould retain his Love to his Son in reſpect of his Divine Nature, and yet lay him in reſpect of his Humane Nature under his manifeſt Diſpleaſure, being now under the Charge of all the Sins of his Elect, and ſo Sin on Chriſt was the Object of God's Abhorrency.
Neonom.
Whether Christ was thus on the Account of the Filthineſs of Sin, &c. This you affirm, and I deny.
Antinom.
When you can clear Sin from being Filthineſs in the ſight of God, upon any account; and that Guilt of Sin, reatus culpae, (I mean, not liableneſs to Puniſhment, that's not Sin, but the Effect of it) is not the greateſt Filth of Sin: I ſhall tell you, I do not think Sin as to it's Filthineſs was not laid on Chriſt: But this hath been argued before. You think you have a great Claw at me here; but I am ſorry you underſtand the Nature of Sin no better, as to think it in the Law relation to be ſo clean, as not to be Filth in the ſight of God.
Calvin.
I pray Mr. Neonomian, lead us into the Truth of this Point, that we may not be miſtaken: We are willing to receive Light in theſe Truths; but we think it of dangerous Conſequence to part with them, or darken them.
Neonom.
Truth. Though God teſtified his threatned Indignation againſt Sin in the awful Sufferings of Chriſt, Soul and Body, in his Agony, and ſuſpended thoſe delightful Communications of the Divine Nature to the Humane Nature of Chriſt, as to their wonted Degrees; yet God was never ſeparated from Chriſt, much leſs during his Body's lying in the Grave; neither was the Father ever diſpleaſed with Chriſt; and far leſs did he abhorr him, becauſe of the Filthineſs of Sin upon him. D. W. p. 31.
Antinom.
This is a marvellous Aphoriſm indeed. 1. Did God teſtifie his threatned Indignation againſt Sin in the awful Sufferings of Chriſt, Soul and Body? What is this leſs than what you would condemn for Error in me? 2. Did God ſuſpend his Delightful Communications to the Humane Nature? What was this but the Separation I always ſhewed that I intended? 3. That God was never ſeparated from Chriſt in the Hypoſtatick Union, I always affirm: No, not during his lying in the Grave. 4. But 4ly, I never ſaid, the Father was diſpleaſed with Chriſt as his Son, or in relation to him as Son by Eternal Generation, but in relation to him as our Surety, and as a Sacrifice to bear Sin, he was diſpleaſed with him, or elſe you give your ſelf the Lie in the ſame Paragraph, where you ſay, he teſtified his threatned Indignation againſt ſin in the Sufferings of his Body and Soul; and how could this be without Diſpleaſure. 5. What have we been doing all this while? Have you not been arguing againſt Chriſt's bearing ſin? And now you ſay, God teſtified his Wrath againſt ſin in the Sufferings of Chriſt. If ſin was not imputed to him, could he bear Indignation for it? 6. And was not the Father as Judge diſpleaſed with Chriſt as Debtor, and bearing our ſins? How could he deal with him elſe in a way of teſtifying his Indignation, as you ſay? 7. You ſay, He did not abhorr him; ſo ſay we, not his Perſon, nor in ſuch a way of Abhorrence that is in Man's Affections. God is not as Man, in natural Appetite or Averſion; but he exerted ſuch an Abhorrence or Averſion as was proper to his Nature; we deſire to term it but as you do, a manifeſtation of threatned Indignation to Sin, condemning Sin in the Fleſh of Chriſt, Rom. 8.8. As Chriſt was made ſin, doth not the Spirit of God ſay he was made a Curſe? Is not Sin a curſed thing, that which is odious and abhorred? Suppoſe then we uſe not thoſe Words Odious, Abhorred, and we ſay, God teſtified his threatned Indignation againſt ſin in Chriſt, even to the making him a Curſe for us: What greater and higher Expreſſion can be uſed? And how could God's Indignation be ſhewed againſt ſin on a perſon upon all Accounts innocent, no way chargeable? Sin can't ſuffer Indignation, but the Sinner may: Sin in the Abſtract is not capable of Suffering, it muſt be ſin bringing ſome Perſon under a Law-Condemnation, ſo that he have the Denomination of a Sinner. 9. And whereas you will not have ſin filthy, where is it the Spirit of God repreſents it any otherwiſe, and the efficacy of Chriſt's Sacrifice as to the Purgation of Filth? therefore it's ſaid, foreign, Heb. 1.3. But of this elſewhere.
Neonom.
This Separation was impoſſible, becauſe of the Ʋnion between the Divine and Humane Nature of Chriſt, &c. D. W. p. 33.
Antinom.
This Argument affects us not, for we never thought of of any ſuch Separation, as I have told you; and it's your Impudence to charge it.
Neonom.
2. The Father hath promiſed conſtant Supports to Christ in the whole of his Ʋndertakings and Sufferings, Iſa 42.1, 4, 6. Iſa. 50 7, 8, 9.
Antinom.
Shot beſide me ſtill. I ſaid, Should Iniquity been laid on the Humane Nature, and the Divine Nature not ſupport it, it would have ſunk under ſin; and you own that I ſay ſo. Dr. Cr. p. 378.
Neonom.
And is it not ſtrange, Gentlemen, that after he had ſaid this, he ſhould affirm a Separation?
Antinom.
And is it not ſtrange, that you cannot diſtinguiſh between Separations: I may ſeparate from a thing in one reſpect and not in another: I may ſeparate from another as to Communion, but not as to Relation, let it be Son, Wife, Brother, &c. and it's ſtrange you cannot underſtand forſaking to be but of a Relation.
Neonom.
The Lord Jeſus could not be abhorred or odious to God, for in him God was always well-pleaſed, Iſa. 42.1. Matth. 17.5.
Antinom.
We ſay the ſame: Chriſt's Perſon in his Eternal Sonſhip was ſo. All the Indignation that was teſtified towards him in his Humane Nature, in which only he was capable of Suffering, in that he became a Curſe as well as Sin, God ſaith it.
Neonom.
Mr. Calvin, How horrid a Sound hath it to the Ear, to ſay, that Chriſt is odious to God, and abhorred by the Father?
Calvin.
Methinks thoſe new Words applyed to Chriſt do not ſound ſo well, and ſome Ears are offended at them. I think it's better to uſe the Scripture-Expreſſions, Chriſt made Sin, and Chriſt made a Curſe for us: Let us but have the thing, Mr. Neonomian, we will part with any Word that's not Scriptural, if you give us another that will expreſs it as well.
Antinom.
Doth not this make as horrid a Sound in a Chriſtian Ear, that God manifeſted his wrathful Indignation againſt ſin in the Perſon of Chriſt, in a moſt awful and dreadful manner?
Calvin.
But that's his way of expreſſing it, he doth not like yours.
Antinom.
Then I will abdicate thoſe Words Odious and Abhorrence, and uſe his Words; I be not fond of mine.
Neonom.
5. Christ could not be ſeparated from God, or abhorred: while his Body lay in the Grave, his Soul went into Paradiſe.
Antinom.
No, his Hypoſtatical Union was not diſſolved, nor God's Fatherly Love removed from his Perſon; but yet at the ſame time he was under the Suffering of Death, which was Penal for ſin, he finiſhed his Soul-ſufferings on the Croſs, but was under the Separation of Body and Soul, which was part of the Threatned Indignation againſt Sin; as alſo the lying of his Body in the Grave.
Neonom.
I will ſhew you your miſtakes. You do not diſtinguiſh between the Affection of Wrath and Effects of Wrath, becauſe God forſook Chriſt as to the uſual Degrees of Comfort, he thinks Chriſt was ſeparated from God.
Antinom.
Sure this is a ſoul Miſtake; if he ſhould miſtake his Logick, as to take the Cauſe to be the Effect, and the Effect the Cauſe: But I doubt you miſtake your Divinity, as to aſcribe an affection of Wrath to God. But I pray, where there's an Effect of Wrath in the Creature, is not Wrath the Cauſe of it? He that lies under the Effects of Wrath, is he not under Wrath? If Chriſt ſuffereth the Effects of Wrath, he ſuffereth Wrath. I know not how any one ſhould ſuffer Wrath any other way. As to my Thoughts about Separation from God, they are only your Impoſition of Thoughts and Meanings upon me, as I have told you.
Neonom.
Becauſe he that is formally a Sinner is odious to God, therefore he thinks Chriſt was odious to God, who had on him the Puniſhment of Sin, with the Guilt or Obligation to bear Puniſhment by his own Conſent, neither of which have any thing of the Loathſomneſs of Sin.
Antinom.
I will not uſe the Word Odious, becauſe you love not the ſmell of it: I ſay therefore, becauſe a formal Sinner, or Committer of ſin unpardoned, is the Object of God's threatned Indignation bearing the Effects of Wrath, therefore an imputed Sinner is alſo the Object of God's threatned Indignation bearing the Effects of Wrath. You will be at the old Socinian Notion ſtill, That Chriſt bore but the Puniſhment for Sin, and Guilt is only Obligation to Puniſhment; which is abſolutely falſe, unleſs you mean reatus culpae; for nothing is a Demerit of Puniſhment, but reatus culpae.
Neonom.
I know not why you think Chriſt came not near God from the time of his Death to his Reſurrection, unleſs becauſe of your Conceit, for the Loathſomneſs of Sin God could not bear the ſight of him.
Antinom.
Your frequent Banter and Scoffs at the Scripture-Account of the Nature of Chriſt's Satisfaction, and of Sin, I am ſure is very odious, and a horrid Sound to a Chriſtian Ear. I ſhall not think ſuch reaſoning worthy of any thing but a Note of Contempt.
Calvin.
Mr. Neonomian, you muſt know we can't part with this Article of our Faith, That Chriſt was made a Curſe for us, no more than that, That he was made Sin; That Chriſt bore the Curſe of the Law, and was made a Curſe for us, is ſuch a Goſpel-Truth, that we need no other Authority for it, than what is contained in the Scripture, being ſo expreſly declared; which all ſound Proteſtants always underſtood of bearing the Wrath of God in his Soul and Body, eſpecially in his Soul, undergoing Poena Damni and Senſus, the firſt whereof I look to be the greateſt and Cauſe of the other, and alſo fully enough expreſs'd by our Lord Jeſus Chriſt upon the Croſs.
Take Mr. Calvin. in his Harmony on the Evangeliſts. Altho' there appeared more than Humane Courage in Chriſt's Outcry, yet it's certain it was uttered from Extremity of Grief. Verily, this was his chiefeſt Conflict, and more grievous than all his other Torments, becauſe that in his Anguiſhes he was not ſo refreſhed with his Fathers Holy Favour, that he did in ſome reſpect perceive him alienated from him; for neither did he offer his Body only as the Price of our Reconciliation with God, but in his Soul he bore the Puniſhment due to us; and they are Men of unſavoury Spirits, that ſlighting this part of Redemption, do inſiſt only on the external Puniſhments of the Fleſh; for as Chriſt ſatisfied for us, ſo it was requiſite that he ſhould be ſet as guilty before God's Tribunal: For nothing is more horrible than to perceive God as a Judge, whoſe Wrath exceeds all Deaths — Neither doth he complain Feignedly or Theatrically that he was deſerted of God, according to the inſipid Cavils of ſome: For the inward Grief of his Soul from the Depth of Anguiſh, compelled him to break forth into this Outcry. He did perfectly fulfill the Law, endured moſt grievous Torments immediately in his Soul. Conf. Aſſemb. c. 8. § 4.
He bore the Weight of God's Wrath, and laid down his Life an Offering for ſin. Large Catceh. p. 249.
Queſt. What Death did Chriſt ſuffer when he Sacrificed himſelf? Mr. Perkin's Catech.
Anſw. A Death upon the Croſs, peculiar to himſelf alone: For beſides the Separation of Body and Soul, he felt alſo the Pangs of Hell, in that the whole Wrath of God due to the Sin of Man was poured forth upon him.
The Apoſtle doth not ſay that Chriſt was curſed, but a Curſe,Calv. on Gal. 3.13. which is more; for it ſhews that all Malediction was included in him: This may ſeem hard, that it may look like a Reproach to the Croſs of Chriſt in Confeſſion, of which we glory: But God was not ignorant of what kind of Death his Son ſhould die, when he ſaid, Curſed is every one that hangeth on a Tree. But one may here object, How comes it to paſs that the Son in whom the Father delights, ſhould be accurſed? I anſwer, Two things are here to be conſidered, not only in the Perſon of Chriſt, but alſo in his Humanity: One is, that he was the Lamb of God without ſpot, full of Bleſſing and Grace. The other, that he took our Perſon; therefore he was a Sinner, and under the Curſe, not ſo much in himſelf as in us, but yet it was neceſſary he ſhould die in our ſtead, which he could not do out of the Grace of God; and yet he underwent his Wrath, elſe how could he reconcile the Father to us, whom he looked upon as incenſed againſt us; therefore the Will of the Father did always reſt ſatisfied in him. Again, how could he free us from the Wrath of God, unleſs he had tranſlated it from us to him; therefore he was wounded for our Sins, and experienced God as an angry Judge. This is the fooliſhneſs of the Croſs, but admired by Angels, and ſwallows up all the Wiſdom of the World.
We muſt not imagine Chriſt to be innocent, and as a private Perſon, (as do the Schoolmen,Luther on Gal. 3.14. and almoſt all the Fathers have done) which is holy and righteous for himſelf only. True it is, that Chriſt is a Perſon moſt pure and unſpotted; but thou muſt not ſtay there, for thou haſt not yet Chriſt, although thou know him to be God and Man: But then thou haſt him indeed, when thou believeſt that this more pure and innocent Perſon is freely given unto thee of the Father to be thy Prieſt and Saviour; yea, rather thy Servant, that he putting off his Innocency and Holineſs, and taking thy ſinful Perſon upon him, might bear thy Sin, thy Death and thy Curſe, and might be made a Sacrifice and Curſe for thee, that by this means he might deliver thee from the Curſe of the Law.
As Paul applied unto Chriſt that place of Moſes, Accurſed is every one that hangeth on a Tree; ſo may we apply unto Chriſt not only that whole 27th of Deut. but alſo may gather all the Curſes of Moſes's Law together, and expound the ſame of Chriſt. For as Chriſt is innocent in this general Law touching his own Perſon; ſo is he alſo in all the reſt. And as he is guilty in this general Law, in that he is made a Curſe for us, and is hanged upon the Croſs, as a wicked Man, a Blaſphemer, a Murderer, a Traytor, even ſo is alſo guilty in all others. For all the Curſes of the Law are heaped together, and laid upon him; and therefore he did bear and ſuffer them in his own Body for us; he was therefore not only accurſed, but made a Curſe for us.
I will tell you what an Eminent New England Divine,Mr. Stone. MSS. no Antinomian, ſaid to this Point, It may appear that Chriſt was made a Curſe for us, becauſe he ſuffered the Perfection of the Second Death, which he began in the Garden; He began to be ſorrowful, Matth. 26.27. He drank the firſt Draught of the Cup of Wrath, and afterwards it's ſaid, He was in an Agony: There was the Second upon the Croſs: He drank up the Bottom and Dregs of the Cup of Vengeance, and ſaid, It is finiſhed, John 19.30. He was curſed of God in an eminent manner, Deut. 21, 22, 23. compared with Gal. 3 13. If a Man be guilty of Sin worthy of Death, and to be hanged for it, then he is accurſed, otherwiſe not; Chriſt was accurſed hanging on the Tree, and therefore it's certain he was guilty of our Sins charged upon him, being the greateſt Sinner by Imputation; and hence he was really curſed of God, and that in an eminent manner; and not only curſed, but a Curſe in the Abſtract; whereby it is moſt evident that he ſuffered the immediate Impreſſions of the Wrath of God, and the Second Death, which takes poſſeſſion of the whole Man, and therefore muſt have ſuffered while his Soul and Body were united, or ſtanding together; he was thoſe three Hours in the Darkneſs of Hell, encountring the Powers of Darkneſs, and wreſtling with the Wrath of an infinite God: Man by Sin having diſpleaſed ſuch an infinite God, muſt ſuffer that infinite Diſpleaſure which Chriſt ſuffered in our, room. The Perfection of which ſecond Death conſiſted in this, that he was utt…rly deprived of all the Sweetneſs of his Fathers Love and Preſence, and filled with the Sence of all the Bitterneſs of his Wrath, Pſal. 22.1, 2. Iſa. 53.4. to 11. Matth 27.45, 46. Gal. 3.13. in which we may attend, 1. The Puniſhment of Loſs, a total Privation and Deſertion in reſpect of Sence and Feeling of the Sweetneſs of his Fathers Love and Preſence: This Deſertion appeared in that the God of Glory forſook him, left him deſtitute and deſolate. God the Father hid his Face from him, God would not ſend in any Comfort, by Sun, Angels, Saints, Pſal. 16.12. God did not only ſtand at a diſtance, but lock'd up himſelf in Anger from him, would not be entreated by him, Pſal. 22.1, 2. &c. 2. There was not only Dereliction but Malediction, Gal. 3.13. He was aſſailed by all the infernal Powers of Hell, Luke 22.53. This is the foreign, the Authority of Darkneſs; they might do their worſt now, they had their full Scope; the great…ſt Battel was fought upon the Croſs, Col. 2.15. 2. He wreſtled with the Fierceneſs of the wrath of an Angry God, conſuming Fire; he was ſmitten of God, Pſal. 69.27. Iſa. 50. Zech. 13.3. He was his Executioner. 3. A Confluence of Plagues and Evils fell upon him, and ſettled themſelves on his Sacred Perſon, and he was filled with them, he was in the depth of them, Pſal. 69.1.
Queſt. What did our Saviour ſuffer in Soul? Dr. Ʋſher's Div. p. 172.
Anſw. He drank the full Cup of God's Wrath filled unto him for our ſakes; the whole Wrath of God due to the Sin of Man being poured forth upon him, therefore in Soul he did abide unſpeakable Vexations, horrible Griefs, painful Troubles, Fear of Mind, feeling as it were the very Pangs of Hell; into which both before, and moſt of all when he hanged upon the Croſs, he was caſt, which cauſed him before his bodily Paſſion ſo grievouſly to complain.
The Death of Chriſt is the laſt Act of his Humiliation, whereby he underwent the moſt extreme,Ameſ. c. 22. horrible and greateſt Puniſhments for Man's Sins. § 2. It contained the greateſt Puniſhments, becauſe it did equalize all that miſery which the ſins of men did deſerve. Hence is that Plenty of Words and Phraſes whereby that Death is expreſſed in Scripture? For it's not called ſimply Death, but cutting off, rejection, treading under foot, a Curſe, an heaping up of wounds and ſtripes, Iſa. 53. Pſal. 22. and Sect. 7.
The Inchoation of the Death of Chriſt in genere damni, in reſpect of Loſs, was the loſs of Joy and Delight the Enjoyment of God and the Fulneſs of his Grace was wont to ſupply him with, which he loſt not as to the Principle and Habit, but as to the Act and Sence. The Inchoa…ion of the Spiritual Death in the Puniſhment of Sence was his taſting of Divine Wrath, and a kind of Subjection to the Power of Darkneſs, which Divine Wrath was moſt eſpecially the Cup which was given to him to drink, Matth. 26.39. Chriſt as Sponſor was that Object of this Wrath abſolutely. Sect. 9.
FINIS.
Neonomianiſm Unmask'd: OR, THE Ancient Goſpel PLEADED, Againſt the OTHER, CALLED, The New LAW.
BEING The Continuation of the SECOND PART of the Theological Debate, occaſioned by Mr. Dan. William's BOOK, Entituled, Goſpel Truth Stated and Vindicated, &c.
By ISAAC CHAƲNCY, M. A.
LONDON, Printed for H. Barnard at the Bible in the Poultry, 1693.