Neonomianism Unmasked, Part 2 · Debate 3
DEBATE III. Of the Diſcharge of the Elect from Sins upon their being laid on Chriſt.
Neonom.
GEntlemen, you may remember what Point was diſcourſed the laſt time we met in this Conference: now Mr. Antinomian is come, I pray let us proceed in order and method, and if you pleaſe, I will propound the ſubject of our Diſcourſe, becauſe I would have it to be ſuch as may lead to diſcover the Errours of the Antinomians, and if it be poſſible to convince this Gentleman whom I take to be ſo deeply immers'd in them.
Calvin.
I remember you have Charged him with ſome already, how far he is guilty, we leave every Man to his own Judgment, to think as matters of proof doth evince: It's not a practice to ſubſcribe our Names to commend Truth, or condemn Errour. Have you any more Errours to Charge him with.
Neonom.
Yes Sir, very foul ones, I will Name you one, and it is this, he holds,
That the very Act of God's laying Sin on Chriſt upon the Croſs, is the very Actual Diſcharge of all the Elect from all their Sins.
Mr. Antinom.
Are you ſure, 1. That this is my Opinion? And, 2. That if it be, it is an Errour? It may be there may be ſuch an ambiguity in the terms of the Queſtion, that you may underſtand them in one ſence and I in another, the greateſt, I judge, lyeth in Actual Diſcharge. But I pray make proof of your Charge firſt, and then we will endeavour to find out the true matter in Debate, and diſcuſs the things in difference; it may be you miſtake me.
Neonom.
This is your declared Opinion, that runs as a Line thorow all your Diſcourſes, and is the Foundation you Build moſt upon.
I ſay all the weight, and all the Burthen, and all that very ſin it ſelf is long ago laid upon Chriſt; and that laying of it upon him, is a full Diſcharge, and a general Releaſe and Acquittance unto thee, that there is not any one ſin now to be charged on thee. Did not you ſpeak theſe words in a Sermon you Preached, you know where, upon Iſa. 53.6. D. C. p. 298.
Antinom.
Yes, I did ſpeak theſe words; but you deal with me as you always have been wont to do, you rehearſe only part of my words, and conceal or take no notice of ſuch Expreſſions as may make my true meaning manifeſt.
I was ſpeaking to that place, Rom. 8. It is God that juſtifies, who is he that condemns? I ſaid the ſame God that juſtifies, will not eat his own words, and paſs Sentence of Condemnation upon a Perſon that hath received the Sentence of Abſolution already: No, you will ſay, God doth not Condemn, but he will let Sin be charged upon the Spirit of a Man; doth not he then Sentence him to be unjuſt? Anſw. There be divers Condemnations: Condemnation in Sentence, and Condemnation in Execution. Condemnation in Sentence is the pronouncing ſuch a Perſon guilty. The other is the Execution of Puniſhment deſerved for this guilt, and it's but an effect of Condemnation, rather than Condemnation it ſelf; ſo far as God charges fault upon a Perſon, ſo far he condemns that Perſon; ſo that if God ſhould charge a Perſon as faulty, how can you believe ſtill that this Perſon is manifeſted and pronounced juſt by God? I beſeech you ſtop your Ears againſt the Quirks of Satan, and of your Hearts deceived by him, clamouring ſtill to you, that Sin lyes upon your own Spirits. It is but the Voice of a Lying Spirit in your own Hearts, that ſaith, That you that are Believers have yet Sin waſting your Conſciences, and lying as a Burden too heavy for you to bear, [now comes in the words which you rehearſed] I ſay all the weight, and all the burden, and all the very ſin it ſelf, &c. Dr. Cr. p. 292. Now I pray judge whether this Gentleman hath dealt fairly with me.
Calvin.
No indeed, I muſt needs ſay he hath not; for you ſee he ſpeaks not of the Elect indefinitely; but of Believers, and is it not of the Devil that any true Believer lyes under Conſcience-waſting ſins? And was not all the ſins of the Elect laid long ago upon Chriſt, in full Diſcharge of every Believer? And is not every Believer bound in Duty to believe it ſo?
Mr. Neonom.
You teach that the Elect are Juſtified before they do believe; otherwiſe till ſuch Believing, the Perſon of the Elect doth bear his own Tranſgreſſion, and is Chargeable for them. D. Cr. p. 616, 617.
Antinom.
Sir, I was preaching from 1 John 2.1, 2. and was ſhewing Faith is the Fruit of our Union with Chriſt, and prov'd it from, John 15. I am the Vine, and ye are the Branches; and I ſhewed that there muſt be a Union to Chriſt before the Branch could bring forth Fruit; and that Fruit is Faith, and proceeds from our Radical Union with Chriſt. I alſo alledged, Col. 3. Your Life is hid with Chriſt in God, &c. And inferred that the Life of every Elect Perſon hath a Being in Chriſt before he doth believe; believing therefore doth not produce a new Life that was not before, [i. e. Fundamentally and Efficaciouſly to the producing of Faith,] but it makes that Life that was before an Active Life, or is an Inſtrument by which that Life which was hid in Chriſt, doth now after believing become an Active, and Appearing Life in this Perſon. So that all that can be made of this, is that till believing there is no Life and Activity in the Perſon that is Elected, his Life is in Chriſt, and was in Chriſt, and reſerved in Chriſt for him till the time of Believing; and then doth he, the Elect Perſon become Active in Life when Chriſt doth give him to believe actually. D. C. 615.
Calvin.
And do you Mr. Neonom. reckon this falſe Doctrine, I wonder what kind of Goſpel you Preach; I am much deceived, if this be not true Goſpel Doctrine, and ſo ſtrongly Built that no Sophiſtry, or all the Gates of Hell will never ſhake. I ſee every thing is not falſe Doctrine which you are pleaſed to call ſo.
Neonom.
Truely now it plainly appears that I am not miſtaken in Charging Calviniſts with Antinomianiſm, if all be of this Gentleman's Opinion.
Antinom.
But Sir, if you be pleaſed to give me leave, I will proceed in the further account of my Diſcourſe. I ſhew'd the dangerous Conſequences that muſt follow this Principle, that there is no Juſtification, [i. e. Fundamentally] and Union at all belonging unto Elect Perſons, till they do Actually believe in Chriſt. I ſay if Perſons are not United unto Chriſt, and do not partake of Juſtification before they do believe, but that believing is the Inſtrument by which they are firſt United. 1. That this in ſome reſpect would be bringing to Life a Covenant of Works, Do this and Live; whereas the Covenant of Grace runs upon contrary terms, Live and do this: God in the Covenant of Grace gives Life firſt, and doing comes from Life.
2. If there muſt be our Act of Believing before our participating of Chriſt, then thoſe Sins that were laid upon Chriſt, and taken away from the Elect, [i. e. in foro Dei] are returned back again— I ſay, if there muſt be believing before there be Union with, or Intereſt in Chriſt, it muſt neceſſarily follow the Perſon doth bear his own Tranſgreſſion, is chargeable for them, and Imputed to him— Hence,
3. If they bear their own Sins, till they Actually Believe, there muſt be an Hatred of God to ſuch Perſons till they Believe Actually, [which is Death,] and a Perſon may perform a Vital Act in a ſtate wherein he is Actually Dead, and at the ſame time.
4. This muſt follow, that there's Believing before Union with Chriſt, and then there muſt be ſome other Root from which this Fruit of Faith doth ſpring; and it's ſaid Heb. 12. expreſly, Chriſt is the Author of our Faith. I have received this Principle meerly for the vindication of the Glorious Priviledges which are proper and peculiar to Chriſt alone, and therefore refer the being of Faith it ſelf to Chriſt; to this end I deliver, that Elect Perſons have a participation and ſhare in Chriſt himſelf, even before they do believe; neither would I thereby diminiſh the Prerogative of Believing; for there are glorious things done by Faith in Believers: God hath honoured it above all meer Creatures in the World; he hath made it the Conduit-pipe for the conveyance of all Peace and Comfort; nay of all that ſtrength which believers have all their Lives; no Faith, no Comfort, no Faith no Peace of Conſcience, no Faith no Pleaſure to walk with God— The Soul lyes in Darkneſs while in Unbelief. But ſtill that which is proper and peculiar to Chriſt alone, is not to be aſcribed to Believing. D. Cr. p. 616, 617, 618.
Calvin.
Mr. Neonom. We ſhall be the better able to take our meaſures, if you will be pleaſed to ſtate this Point aright, and tell us what we may receive for undoubted Truth, and what is to be Anathematized for Errour in your Judgment.
Neonom.
I'le tell you then firſt what is Truth.
Truth. The Atonement made by Chriſt by the Appointment of God, is that for which alone the Elect are pardoned, when it is applyed to them. D. W. c. 3. p. 15.
Antinom.
Pray Sir give me leave to make my Remarks as you dictate, becauſe my Memory is but ſhort.
1. You grant then that there is a compleat Atonement wrought, finiſhed and accepted by God; if ſo, there is a Fundamental Life of Juſtification laid up and reſerved for them in Chriſt.
2. That this precedes their Actual Juſtification by Faith.
3. That this influenceth to Juſtification by Faith and is objective to Faith, and Meritorious of Faith, and of the Work of the Spirit working Faith.
Neonom.
But the Elect are not immediately pardoned, upon Chriſt's being appointed to ſuffer for them, nor as ſoon as the Atonement was made.
Antinom.
The Queſtion is, Whether there is not upon Chriſt's Atonement Pardon with God that he may be feared? Or whether there be not a Life laid up for them in Chriſt which needs no addition to it? There is a difference between Pardon and Pardoned; one is the Abſtract, and the other the Concrete. We ſay where there is Atonement for any, there is Pardon; but it follows not that becauſe there is Pardon for any, that therefore they are pardoned; there may be a Pardon Sealed for a Traytor by the King, and yet he not pardoned, but the Law proceeds againſt him, till the Pardon is ſent down and read in Court. So the Pardon is certain and finiſhed for all the Elect, but they have not the particular Pardons taken out, nor pardoned till they believe.
Neonom.
Nor is that Act of laying Sins on Chriſt, God's forgiving Act by which we are perſonally diſcharged.
Antinom.
I doubt you are too preſumptuous, to preſcribe to God which ſhall be his forgiving Acts, and which not; if God's laying Sin on Chriſt be not of a pardoning and forgiving Nature to us, I know not what it was, did he not do it as a God pardoning Iniquity, Tranſgreſſion and Sin? was it not his caſting our Iniquities behind his Back? And is it not this Act of God which reacheth every Elect Perſon unto Actual Pardon and Forgiveneſs? Yea, are we not Juſtified by this Act of God apprehended and applyed by Faith? For is not an Act of God removing Sin from us, and laying them on a Surety, a Pardoning Act.
Calvin.
I pray Sir deliver your ſelf more diſtinctly, for you do darken and confound things extreamly.
Neonom.
I will tell you what is not in Diſpute between us in diverſe particulars, that you may not take up a wrong ſenſe. 1. The Queſtion is not, Whether Chriſt made a full Atonement for Sin.
Antinom.
Give me but the right ſcent of you (which is hard to keep, you make ſo many banks and turns) and I will follow you as cloſe at the Heels as I can. You grant Chriſt made full Atonement for Sin; there's Pardon in that Atonement without Queſtion for all God's Elect. Atonement always carries Pardon in it as its formal Nature, or elſe it's no Atonement.
Neonom.
2. Nor whether that ſhall in time be applyed to the Elect for their Actual Remiſſion as the Effect of it? D. W. p. 16.
Antinom.
Then there is Atonement wherein is Pardon eventually certain; i. e. ſhall certainly be applyed, and being applyed is actual Remiſſion as the Effect; therefore this Atonement is the Remiſſion, as the Cauſe and as the Object to be applyed.
Neonom.
3. Nor whether we be ſo far Releaſed thereupon, as that God can demand no Atonement from any who ſhall ſubmit to the Goſpel way of Application of it.
Antinom.
It ſeems then if they will not ſubmit to the Goſpel way of Application, God can demand ſome other Atonement from them. I never underſtood before that the Suffering of the Damned was Atonement; for where there's Atonement God is at laſt appeaſed, but he will never be appeaſed toward the Damned. 2. You ſaid but now that the application of the Atonement to the Elect in time ſhould be (I underſtood you) certain, but now you make it only conditional, in caſe of their ſubmiſſion to the Goſpel way of Application.
Neonom.
Nor 4thly, Whether the Law be anſwered, and God's Honour ſo vindicated thereby, that the Sins of Men cannot hinder an Offer and Promiſe of Forgiveneſs and Life.
Antinom.
There's a great Theological Intriegue here, we muſt endeavour to unravel it. What do you mean by anſwering the Law, is it by Active or Paſſive Obedience, or both? and for whom? for ſome abſolutely or conditionally? you tell us of a conditional Atonement, and ſuch an Atonement the Scripture is a ſtranger to.
2. You would have us to underſtand the end and uſe of Atonement is to fence and ſecure God againſt his Law, that ſo he might be at liberty to ſave Men; this is to make an Atonement to Sin, and not for Sin; your ſuggeſtion is, that God cannot in Honour offer Life and Salvation till his Law be vindicated, i. e. I ſuppoſe he took out of the way, and aboliſhed that Law, ſo another Law more practicable might be ſet up in the room of it; this is a fine way of vindicating a Law, to Abrogate it.
Neonom.
Nor whether, when we are Pardoned, the whole Meritorious Cauſe of Pardon be that Atonement, and what is required of Sinners is only a meetneſs to receive the Effects of it.
Antinom.
What do you mean by the whole Meritorious Cauſe? Do you exclude Chriſt's Active Obedience from the Meritorious Cauſes? And do you mean the Merit of Satisfaction or Procurement? There's a great deal of difference in the Caſe before us; and what is the meetneſs? whether it be not a meetneſs of Congruity, if not of Condignity? And whether this meetneſs be not of the Effects of Chriſt's Merits, and if not from what other Cauſe it ariſeth?
Neonom.
Nor whether this Atonement is the only way of Forgiveneſs which we can apprehend?
Antinom.
I had thought a meetneſs to be forgiven, had been with you one way to be forgiven, which you make to be diſtinct from Atonement, and the Meritorious Cauſe of Forgiveneſs.
Now Sir, you ſay theſe things are not the Queſtion, but they are queſtionable to me; you might have told us of a Thouſand more Queſtions which are not ours; for there is no one thing but in genere diſparatorum is ſeparate from all other things in the World. But after, Sir, you have freed our Brains from the mixture of all Impertinent Queſtions, I pray put your Finger upon the very Spot.
Neonom.
The Real Difference, lyes in two Things.
1. Whether the Elect were Actually diſcharged of all their Sins at the time that Chriſt made Atonement? D. W. p. 16.
Antinom.
The Queſtion is, whether a Believer is not to look upon the laying of his Sins on Chriſt his full Releaſe; for I ſpeak of an Elect Believer; I ſay not that any other can, whether Elect or no; for all the burden and load of Sin was long ago laid on Chriſt, it is not now to do.
Neonom.
Having ſpoken to the Queſtion before, I inſiſt now only upon this, Whether the very Act of laying Sin upon Chriſt on the Croſs, be the diſcharge of the Elect from all Sin?
Antinom.
You ſtate your Queſtions ſtill with great Ambiguity; for what mean you by the Act of laying Sin on Chriſt? The laying Sin on Chriſt muſt ſuppoſe and imply all things that conduced to the making him a compleat Sacrifice for Sin, God's Acts and his own: on God's part it's to be ſuppoſed there was not only a charge of Chriſt, but a diſcharge on Chriſt's part; not only a Subjection to the Charge, but a Suffering by way of Satisfaction; not only an undertaking of the Debt, but a payment; I ſuppoſe you mean, whether the Atonement that Chriſt made was in any ſence a diſcharge unto the Elect; for no wiſe Perſon will give a Diſcharge to a Debtor till the Money be paid, or Suretiſhip accepted; now then we diſtinguiſh of Pardon, it was perfect and compleat by way of Impetration for all the Elect, but it hath not an Actual Application till the Perſons are in being to whom it is to be applyed; and that Application in regard of the time of their Lives, is according to the diſpenſation of Grace. Now all this you ſeem to grant, and need not put to any further Queſtion; you ſay Chriſt made full Atonement for Sin, and it ſhall be certainly applyed; you ſay only that a Sinner is not diſcharged till Application: we diſtinguiſh of Diſcharge. 1. There's that which is Vertual and Fundamental, and Real in Chriſt; or elſe he could not have roſe; for the Charge upon him was our Sins, and he muſt have a Diſcharge as a Surety; and it was the Elects Diſcharge in the Mind of God and of Chriſt, and really tranſacted. But 2ly, There's a perſonal ſenſible Diſcharge, which is at or by Application.
Now then in the ſame ſence that Chriſt bore our Sins by Imputation, as a Repreſentative, in that ſence we were Diſcharged; for the Diſcharge muſt be as large and full as the Charge, to the very Perſon of Chriſt, and all he undertook for, or elſe he is bearing Sin ſtill, and the Sins of ſome of the Elect muſt be ſtill upon him. And 3ly, If Chriſt obtained what he bore our Sins for, then he had a Diſcharge not only for his own Perſon, but for all he undertook for and repreſented; and Chriſt having made good and full payment, cannot remain undiſcharged, for he finiſhed the work which his Father appointed him to do.
Neonom.
But we can claim no Intereſt in his Atonement till we Believe.
Antinom.
A Sinner's firſt Ground of Claim is the Promiſe and free Offer of Chriſt in the Goſpel, and Faith is a laying hold upon him, and receiving of him in whom is full Atonement and Pardon. It is one thing to have Jus ad rem, and another to have Jus in re; a Child new Born, or to be Born Heir of an Eſtate, hath a good Right to the Inheritance, elſe he could not be Heir, which is previous and lyes dormant until the time of Claim and Poſſeſſion, and therefore the Apoſtle ſeems to ſpeak in this way of Alluſion, Eph. 1.11. He ſaith, In whom we have obtained an Inheritance, foreign, and it's grounded upon what he ſaid, ver. 7. in whom we have Redemption. And Dr. Goodwin ſaith, That the Apoſtle ſpeaks not there of the Redemption that we have here, [i. e. the Fruits of Redemption] but of the Work of Redemption which Chriſt himſelf hath wrought, which is the cauſe of all the Redemption we receive. And 2dly, We have Redemption in Chriſt as in a common Perſon; and we have it not only when it is applyed to us, but we have it in him as we had Condemnation in Adam before we were Born into the World; ſo we had Redemption in Chriſt when he dyed. So Dr. Goodwin on Eph. 1.
Neonom.
It was not that Will or Purpoſe of God, or Chriſt, that the laying our Sins on Chriſt ſhould be the Immediate Diſcharge of the Elect, John 6.40. 1 Pet. 1.2. D. W. p. 17.
Antinom.
It was the Will and Purpoſe of God and Chriſt, that upon Chriſt's Satisfaction for Sin he ſhould have an immediate Diſcharge, and all the Elect Vertually and Really in him, a general Diſcharge, but not manifeſted, and perſonally applyed to particular Perſons, and in this ſence the Elect are Diſcharged at and by Application; and the places mentioned hold forth no more than this; and this is all the Dr. ſaith, That the Church had a general Diſcharge in Chriſt, not a particular Application till Being.
Neonom.
This overthrows the whole Scheme ſo wiſely contrived for the diſtribution of the Effects of his Death.
Antinom.
It may overthrow your Scheme, but it overthrows no true Scheme of the Goſpel Myſtery.
Antinom.
Things are ſo adjuſted, that forgiving the Elect ſhould be the Effect of Chriſt's Kingly Office as well as his Prieſtly Office, Acts 5.31. 1 Cor. 6.11. Acts 26.18.
Antinom.
Chriſt wrought out our Forgiveneſs by way of Atonement as a Prieſt, and God was Atoned and Appeaſed thereby; and therein he alſo Gloriouſly Triumphed in his Kingly Office, ſpoiling Principalities and Powers, Triumphing over them on the Croſs, Col. 2.14. And through Death he deſtroyed him that hath the Power of Death, even the Devil, Heb. 2.14. In that place, Chriſt is meant in all his Offices; firſt as a Prieſt entred into the Holieſt of all, Heb. 4.14. Application is by vertue of his Interceſſion to obtain the Ends of his Death; likewiſe as a Prophet he teacheth by his Spirit and Goſpel, the Promiſe of Eternal Life, and the whole Myſtery of his Incarnation, and Sufferings, and Exaltation; he as a King Conquers and Subdues the Hearts of Sinners to himſelf, and gives forth the Promiſe of the Father, and hence there comes the Application of Pardon, and that Life laid up and hid in himſelf, Coloſ. 3.1, 2, 3. And all the places mentioned by you, ſpeak but of our receiving Forgiveneſs, ſo all the Offices of Chriſt have the Honour due unto them, when we were Enemies we were Reconciled by the Death of his Son, Rom. 5.10. Reconciliation was by his Atonement; and therefore the Apoſtle ſaith, ver. 11. not only ſo, but through Jeſus Chriſt we have now received the Atonement; viz. through all Chriſt, in all his Offices; it's one thing to make Atonement, and for God to be reconciled to us; that is the accompliſhment of the Reconciliation of God to the Elect, conſidered as Sinners: and another thing to Reconcile us, which is done by the Goſpel Miniſtry, whereby alſo we receive the Atonement. Dr. Davenant having ſhew'd many ways of Redemption, ſaith, Ʋltima & unica ratio nos redimendi, eſt ea quae fit per modum Juſtitiae, &c. The laſt and only way of Redemption, is that which was by way of Juſtice all our Debts being paid by our Surety Jeſus Chriſt; which price being paid, the great Debt is diſcharged, 1 Pet. 1.18. Chriſt averts the Wrath of God from us, by undergoing the Puniſhment undue to him, to free us from our Debt, Gal. 3.13. — And here it is to be obſerved, that although the Devil do detain us Captives, yet the price of our Redemption, viz. The Blood of Chriſt, was Offered in ſatisfaction to God, not to the Devil, &c. Deo ſatisfactum & expiata ſunt peccata noſtra. Dr. Davenant on Coloſ. 1.14.
Neonom.
Arg. 3. By the oppoſite Errour the Elect would have been diſcharged if Chriſt had never riſen again.
Antinom.
We excepted againſt this Quirk before, as if any Man underſtood not by laying Sin on Chriſt, all things that concern the ſatisfaction to be made; ſpeaking of things by Synechdoches and Metonimy's as the Scripture doth, mentioning ſometimes the Blood of Chriſt, ſometimes his Body, for all the ſatisfaction of Chriſt by Sufferings, and by Metonymies the Croſs of Chriſt for his Sufferings on the Croſs. Secondly, Chriſt's Satisfaction had never been compleated if he had never roſe from the Dead, and then we had been ſtill in our Sins, 1 Cor. 15. and 1 Pet. 1.3.
But let your Suppoſition go, (though no ſuch thing is to be ſuppoſed) make what you can of it; and obſerve, I pray, was not the Sins of Believers under the Law Actually taken away before Chriſt either Dyed or Roſe again? I ſay if a Creditor do accept of an Inſolvent Perſon for Paymaſter, and Cancel the Debtor's Bond, the ſaid Creditor cannot recover his Debt of the Principal, though it may affright him, fearing it is not Cancelled; there's nothing truer than that the Hand-writing of the Law that was againſt us, which was contrary to us, was taken away and Nailed to the Croſs, Col. 2.14. Dr. Davenant after a long Explanation of the Text, ſaith, In all theſe words this one thing is ſhewed, that by vertue of the Paſſion of Chriſt dying upon the Croſs, the Damning Power of the Moral Law was taken away, and all the Rites of the Ceremonial Law were at once abrogated. The Hand-writing of the Law bound us to Obedience, and bound us over to Puniſhment for Non-performance thereof; Chriſt therefore our Surety, by performing that exact Obedience which the Law required, and undergoing the Puniſhment which the Law exacted of the Violators thereof, did that which we were bound unto by this Hand-writing; and ſo blotted out the Hand-writing, for the Blood of him being ſhed who was without ſpot, the Hand-writing of all faults are blotted out, as Auguſtine ſaith, Chriſt was made in ſubjection to the Law, that he might redeem them that are ſubject to the Law, Gal. 4.4, 5. Dr. Davenant on the place. He adds,
But that is to be obſerved, this Hand-writing may be ſaid to be blotted out two ways. 1. Quoad Deum, as to God, Ʋniverſaliter & Sufficienter, Univerſally and Sufficiently, becauſe there is ſuch ſatisfaction given to God by the Blood of Chriſt; becauſe that Hand-writing of the Law cannot be exacted of any as Debtors, when they fly by Faith to this Redeemer, but he muſt abſolve them. 2. Particulariter & efficaciter, Particularly and efficaciouſly, when it is actually blotted out from the Conſciences of Individual Faithful ones who do apprehend Chriſt by Faith, [and he follows the true Spiritual ſence of this Scripture moſt Evangelically, I chuſe to give the Summ of it, becauſe it decides the whole Point in Controverſie moſt excellently,] according to that of the Apoſtle, Rom. 5.1. A Man in Debt cannot have Peace ſo long as he ſees he owes more Money than he can pay, and ſees he is bound in a Bond under his Hand to the payment thereof; but as ſoon as any Perſon apprehends Chriſt by Faith; immediately the Hand-writing is Cancelled [in his view] and he enjoys bleſſed peace of Conſcience. Here Paul excellently reſolveth the Caſe of doubting Conſciences by an admirable kind of Gradation; not content with what he had ſaid in the former Verſe, all your Sins are forgiven; but he adds, the very Hand-writing is Cancelled; but it may be ſaid, Happily not ſo blotted out but a new Suit may ariſe, he ſubjoyns therefore è medio ſublatum, it is taken out of the way; but it may be ſaid again, it may be it's kept and hid, and hereafter may be produced; yea, ſaith the Apoſtle it's Nailed to the Croſs, Cruci affixum, it is Cancelled, torn in Pieces and Nailed to the Croſs; this he ſaith, we ought to believe; not only that Chriſt hath deſerved the blotting out of this Hand-writing, but that it is even Actually blotted out as to our ſelves in particular.
I think Sir, now I need ſay no more of this Debate, ſeeing I have given you the Opinion of the Learned Dr. and of whoſe Opinion I know you are in the Point of Univerſal Redemption; and I believe your other Arguments are here Anſwered.
Neonom.
I will alledge them for all that.
Arg. 4. If taking Sins of the Elect, and laying them on Chriſt was their diſcharge, they would be diſcharged before the Sufferings and Death of Chriſt, &c. D. W. p. 18.
Antinom.
This Argument is as it were the ſame with the former, and admits the ſame Anſwer. And would it be ſo abſurd to ſay a Believer may be diſcharged before the Death of Chriſt, were not the Faithful under the Old Teſtament diſcharged before the Death of Chriſt? We ſay, when the Charge of Sin is taken off from one and laid upon another, there is a diſcharge real in one ſence or another. Generaliter; but not particulariter; here is a blotting out of Sin, quoad Deum, though not quoad Conſcientiam. Chriſt took away Sin by way of Suretiſhip before he did it Actually, and ſo the Faithful before his Coming were ſaved.
Neonom.
If this Errour hold, the Goſpel Notion of Forgiveneſs by the Blood of Chriſt is deſtroyed. D. W. p. 19.
Antinom.
You mean I ſuppoſe if this be Truth; No, It confirms Goſpel Forgiveneſs by the Blood of Chriſt; but prove that it deſtroys it.
Neonom.
Forgiveneſs denotes a Perſon guilty; it is a Judicial Act of God as Rector Acting by a Goſpel Rule.
Antinom.
The Apoſtle ſaith, He juſtifies by free Grace through the Redemption of Christ, that he may appear just alſo, in ſo doing, becauſe his Juſtice is ſatisfied. He ſhews God juſtifies ſitting on a Throne of Grace; Grace is the Impulſive Cauſe ſo far as it conſiſts in the Pardon of a Sinner; but it is through the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt to ſhew forth his Righteouſneſs, and in forgiving in and through the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt; he hath the high concurrence of Juſtice therein, that as he is a Gracious Juſtifier, ſo he is juſtified as Righteous by doing it in this way; and whereas you ſay, It's a Judicial Act of God, Acting by a Goſpel Rule; I think you ſhould rather ſay, It is a Gracious Act of God Acting according to the Rules of Juſtice therein; for ſo the Apoſtle clearly deſcribes it, Rom. 3.24, 25.
And methinks you turn my Stomach to hear you give ſo pitiful, a low and mean Title to God as a Rector, (as if he were but a Mayor of a Corporation, or ſome little Earthly Prince.)
Neonom.
And this ſuppoſeth the full and perfect Atonement made by Chriſt, and the Grant made in Vertue thereof.
Antinom.
What have we been Diſputing about all this while? I am glad to ſee Mr. Neonomian's Ingenuity, that now he grants all we Diſpute about, only differs in naming a thing; you ſay the Atonement of the Wrath of God by Chriſt for Sinners (which is in my ſence Fundamentally and Really Pardon quoad Deum) is full, compleat and perfect; and that Forgiveneſs ſuppoſeth it, and the Grant made in the Vertue thereof; if you had ſaid, it had been the Grant made in the vertue thereof, I take it you had ſpoken your own ſence fuller, than to ſay it ſuppoſeth the Grant made in the vertue thereof; unleſs you mean the Grant made to Chriſt as our Repreſentative, which comes more to our ſence; but let theſe Miſtakes in Expreſſion paſs.
You ſeem to diſtinguiſh between a Diſcharge and a Diſcharge, ſo do we; you diſtinguiſh between an accepted Atonement for us, and giving out the Grant and Patent to us, and ſo do we; between Impetration and Application, and ſo do we; between Forgiveneſs in foro Dei, and Forgiveneſs in foro Conſcientiae, or Evangelii; but as to that firſt I find you do not Love to call it Forgiveneſs, though you think it carries the Nature of Forgiveneſs in it; why ſhould you repreſent me as ſuch an Heretick, to ſcare People from my Miniſtry upon the meer naming a thing, by a word which by your own terms contain the Nature and Subſtance.
Neonom.
But Forgiveneſs ſuppoſeth a Perſon Guilty.
Antinom.
Chriſt's bearing Sin ſuppoſeth all the World is become Guilty before God, and the Elect as well as others; and therefore he became a Propitiation for Sin to God, that we who are by Nature under the Law, and thereby Condemned as Children of Adam, and in our own Conſciences, and thereby guilty, might receive Forgiveneſs of Sins, or an Atonement (both ſignifying the ſame thing) by believing. A Man is reus quoad Deum, & reus quoad Miniſtrationem Legis in Conſcientiâ; and in this ſence ſhut up under the Law till Faith comes, and then is his Perſonal and Particular Diſcharge through the Blood of Chriſt; and this laſt I apprehend to be the Juſtification by Faith, which the Apoſtle Paul ſpeaks ſo frequently of; neither do I ſay that this or that Man hath any part in Chriſt or Pardon, any more than in Election and Redemption, till he doth believe.
Neonom.
But you are of Opinion a Perſon is never guilty.
Antinom.
I never had any ſuch Opinion, if you diſtinguiſh right concerning Guilt.
Neonom.
You ſay Man, that Sins were laid on Chriſt before we were Born, and therefore never upon us.
Antinom.
How old are you? Was not Chriſt's Death and Suffering almoſt 1700 years ago? And do you not ſay Sins were laid then on Chriſt; and if they were then laid on Chriſt, they cannot return to us in the ſence as they were taken off from us; and therefore they are never upon us in the ſame manner as they are on thoſe that are not Elect, and this muſt be in reſpect of Guilt quodamodo, ſome kind of guilt; diſtinguiſh then of guilt, there is guilt in reſpect of the Righteous Judgment of God in foro Dei; and guilt that accompanies the Letter of the Law ſetting in with our Conſciences, and in that ſence the Law worketh Wrath. Sins were laid upon Chriſt, and they lye upon us, but not both in the ſame Manner, nor for the ſame End.
Neonom.
A Judicial Act by a Rule there is none.
Antinom.
What your new terms of Art mean, I will not trouble my ſelf, my Scheme, as you term it, of Juſtification, imports that God graciouſly pardons in a way of Manifeſtation of his Juſtice, and all God's Acts are according to the Rule of his good Pleaſure, and Will, and that's enough.
Neonom.
For the Goſpel Grant of Pardon is not to the Elect as Elect; but as penitent Believers, neither is the Atonement of Chriſt ſuppoſed to our Forgiveneſs.
Antinom.
Pardon as to the Nature of it belongs to Sinners, as ſuch, & eo nomine; Faith and Penitency is given together with Remiſſion of Sins; and how can you have the Face to ſay, I do not ſuppoſe Atonement in Forgiveneſs, or belonging to it, when it's upon that account that you have fell ſo foully upon me, becauſe you think I lay too great a ſtreſs on Atonement, and give too much to it in Forgiveneſs.
Neonom.
You own the laying of our Sins on Chriſt before the making of Atonement; and without our Sins lay on Chriſt, he could not juſtly be puniſhed.
Antinom.
And do not you own that it's firſt in Nature to making Atonement, and how could Chriſt be juſtly puniſhed without he had the Merit upon him either by his own Sins, or by the Sins of others; but I find you own a Man may be juſtly puniſhed that deſerves it in no ſence whatever.
Neonom.
So that our Diſcharge being a transferring of Sin from us to Chriſt, and this being done before Chriſt made Atonement, we are diſcharged not for the Atonement of Chriſt, nor by any Act of Forgiveneſs for the ſake of this Atonement; I need not add, that by this Notion Heathens may be in a pardoned State, and there's no need of the Goſpel or Knowledge of Chriſt to bring them out of a ſtate of Wrath.
Antinom.
I hope by this time you have pretty well ſpent your Powder and Ball.
I told you before, when we ſpake of laying Sins on Chriſt, we underſtand his offer to bear them, the Charge and Imputation laid on him, and the payment he made of our Debt, all which is the Atonement; for bearing of our Sins was an Eſſential part of it, as ſhedding his Blood was of the Payment; this payment and bearing Sin was in the Eye of God from Eternity as if already done; hence the Patriarchs were Actually and Perſonally Juſtified by it; and doth it follow that they were Juſtified without Chriſt's Atonement? And whereas you talk of God's Acts of Forgiveneſs, you ſhould tell us what you mean; if Immanent, there's but one Act of Forgiveneſs, there's no new Acts ariſe in God, and it was the Promiſe of Eternal Life before the World began, Tit. 1. If you mean a Tranſient Act, it's but one, viz. the performance of that Promiſe to Chriſt our Surety and Head, and to us in him, Virtually and Fundamentally, 1 John 5.11. This is the Record that he hath given us Eternal Life, and this Life is in his Son; and from him derived to us, terminates in and upon us by the ſame Effectual Grace of God in Chriſt towards us; ſo that the ſame Forgiving Act of God terminates in Chriſt and in us, and therefore you muſt allow our Life of Forgiveneſs firſt in Chriſt, and then beſtowed upon us in and through him, whereby we are as Sinners brought in to him, and receive of his fulneſs both for Juſtifying and Sanctifying Grace.
Whereas you ſay, Heathens by this Notion may be in a pardoned ſtate; you foiſt in another term to impoſe upon us, as if we had ſaid, that immediately upon laying Sins on Chriſt, all the Elect were in a pardoned ſtate; there's none can be in a pardoned ſtate before a being natural, nor before a being Spiritual at leaſt beginning; but what hinders but that the Eternal Life which is given me, ſhould be in Chriſt before I was Born, and inferrs not that therefore when I come into the World there will be no need of Goſpel or Knowledge of Chriſt to bring me out of my Natural Eſtate into Chriſt? See Coloſ. 1.25, 26, 27. Epheſ. 3.3, 4, 5, 6. And are not Gentiles as well as Jews pardoned through Chriſt?
Neonom.
The Aſſemblies at Weſtminſter and the Savoy are both againſt you.
Antinom.
They ſay in a manner but as we do, if you diſtinguiſh between a Forgiveneſs in Chriſt and Forgiveneſs beſtowed, between Impetration and Application, Juſtification and Juſtified.
Neonom.
I will ſhew you your miſtake, Mr. Antinomian; becauſe it was God's Act to appoint Chriſt to ſuffer for our Sins, that we might in his way and time be diſcharged, therefore you think we are immediately diſcharged by that Act.
Antinom.
You take greatly upon you, to tell what I think, and makes me think contrary to what I have expreſt; you take upon you to make me ſpeak what you pleaſe, and to think what you pleaſe; I take you to be a fit Man to be a Guide; was there nothing but God's appointing Chriſt to ſuffer for our Sins? was there not God's accepting of his Sufferings for us? Was not Chriſt Juſtified from the Sins of the Elect? for when he roſe, was there not a Radical Juſtification of all the Elect in Chriſt? If there had not been ſo, they could never have been perſonally Juſtified: but you would have Chriſt only purchaſe our Juſtification by ſomething elſe; but I muſt believe and ſay that he wrought out our Juſtification, which being in him, is the ſame that we do partake of; and that our Diſcharge is begun and carried on in Chriſt, and is compleated in him, and received by Faith in his Blood.
Neonom.
Becauſe Chriſt's Atonement is the Sole Meritorious Cauſe of Forgiveneſs; therefore he thinks God ſuſpends not Forgiveneſs till he works any thing elſe in the Soul, which he made requiſite to our being Forgiven, though not as a Meritorious Cauſe.
Antinom.
No, you mean Chriſt ſhall have the Honour of being the Meritorious Cauſe, but it is that way of Juſtification intended that Chriſt hath merited, that though we have broken the Law, and cannot be Juſtified by it; that a new way of Juſtification ſhould be ſet up, not through his Blood, but by ſomething elſe a peculiar qualification that ſhall make us meet to be forgiven, that there may be ſome reaſon found in the Sinner why he ſhould be forgiven; this is now the new Divinity to ſham off the Satisfaction of Chriſt from the Juſtification of a Sinner; and you think you have been very kind to Chriſt, to ſay, this new Qualifications are not Meritorious Cauſes, but Chriſt's Suffering was, though they muſt ſtand afar off and look on upon a Juſtification by ſomething elſe.
Calviniſt.
I think, as you ſaid, Mr. Antinomian's Ambiguity lyes in the word Diſcharge, concerning which you muſt diſtinguiſh, there's liberatio in Chriſto, & liberatio à Christo; though Mr. Antinomian hath abundantly cleared himſelf, as to his Intention and Meaning; but you Mr. Neonomian are ſo harſh in your Cenſures, that nothing but the worſt Interpretation of his words can be admitted by you.
My Opinion is, that as Chriſt bore our Sins by Imputation; ſo he made full payment of our Debt, and had a Diſcharge ſo far as concerned himſelf and us, repreſented by him and in him; and hence through this Diſcharge, and the perfection of the New Nature in freedom from all Original and Actual Sin, and perfection of all Righteouſneſs, our Eternal Life which God hash given us, is fully and compleatly in him both for Grace and Glory. I ſay fully, Fundamentally, Originally, and as in a Fountain or Root, and of this fulneſs we do receive, even Faith the firſt Vital Act, and by Faith all diſcharge in Juſtification, and all conformity to him in Sanctification through the operation of the Spirit of Holineſs; ſo that it was impoſſible but Chriſt muſt be diſcharged bearing our common Nature, and ſtanding in our ſtead; and that we were in our meaſure diſcharged in him; but it is alſo as impoſſible that we ſhould be diſcharged perſonally, and in ours, till we had our Perſonal Beings, and were firſt in that State, and under that Wrath in ſome regard, from which we were to be delivered, and brought into the New Nature by Reconciliation and Actual Union on our part, and till then we are Priſoners of the Law, without God, without Hope, Aliens to the Covenant of Promiſe.
This account I truſt may give both ſatisfaction, and I think it's that which is generally received as the Truth of the Goſpel by the Orthodox. I think thoſe Teſtimonies, Mr. Neonomian, brought for your Extream, do all in a manner ſay as I have ſaid, they do not ſo deny the diſcharge of the Elect before believing, as to deny Chriſt's diſcharge, and the Elects in him, ſo far as they were capable, nor do they aſſert our diſcharge in Chriſt ſo as to affirm our Perſonal diſcharge before Faith.
The Aſſembly ſaith thus, The Lord Jeſus Chriſt by his perfect Obedience and Sacrifice of himſelf, which he through the Eternal Spirit once offered up to God, hath fully ſatisfied the Juſtice of his Father, and purchaſed not only Reconciliation, but an Everlaſting Inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven, for all thoſe which the Father hath given to him. Aſſembl. Confeſſ. c. 8. 5. [Here are two things that Chriſt hath done, ſatisfied for our Sins, and over above purchaſed a great Eſtate, he could not have done the latter had he not done the former; and he hath the Grant or Covenant Deeds in his Hands; the Lambs Book of Life wherein the Names of all that are given him are Recorded and Enrolled; and this is Life which he now hath the diſpenſation of in his due time through the Goſpel; and therefore they further ſay, § VIII. To all thoſe to whom Chriſt hath purchaſed Redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the ſame, &c.] The Catechiſm and Savoy Confeſſion ſay the ſame in effect in every thing; and ſo doth Dr. Owen.
When the Lord Chriſt dyed for us, and offered himſelf a Propitiatory Sacrifice, God laid all our Sins on him, Iſa. 53.6. 1 Pet. 2.24. Then he ſuffered in our ſtead, and made full ſatisfaction for all our Sins, as appears, Heb. 9.26. c. 10.14. He whoſe Sins were not Actually and Abſolutely ſatisfied for in that one Offering of Chriſt, ſhall never have them Expiated unto Eternity; —Notwithſtanding this plenary ſatisfaction, yet all Men continue equally to be Born by Nature Children of Wrath — Dr. Owen of Juſtification, 305 [This old Nature Chriſt never Purchaſed and Redeemed, but intended always to pull down and deſtroy, for the whole Nature is under Wrath; and we cannot be in a ſtate of Life till we be in the New Nature, and be Created in Chriſt Jeſus.] What the Lord Jeſus Chriſt paid for us, is as truely paid as if we had paid it our ſelves; — And what he underwent and ſuffered, he underwent and ſuffered in our ſtead; but yet the Act of God in laying our Sins on Chriſt, conveyed no Actual Right and Title to us, [i. e. immediately, for all our Actual Right is founded on it, and flows from it,] therefore he adds,] They are not immediately thereon, nor by vertue thereof ours, or eſteemed ours, [perſonally and in poſſeſſion] becauſe God hath appointed ſomething, not only Antecedent thereunto, but the Means thereof; viz. Imputation of Chriſt's Righteouſneſs to us.
I ſhall add the ſtate of the Queſtion how the Learned Dr. Prid. ſtates the Queſtion de ſatisfact. D. Prid. Praelect. 19. p. 297. de ſatisfact. Chriſti.
Ʋtrum Chriſtus filius Dei & B. Virginis Juſtitiae Divinae [non commutativae ſed diſtributivae & Judiciali, tam premiativae quam vindicativae] verè h. e. non praecariò, impetrativè, tantum aut metaphoricè, ſed, reipſâ, meritoriè & integrè, non omittendo aliquid qui ſtricto Jure fieri debuit, ſatisfecerit tam agendo quam patiendo quicquid ſaluti noſtri erat requiſitum. Hic affirmamus Orthodoxi cum noſtris Art. 31. obliquè negant Papiculae, & ſubdolè labefactant Remonſtrantes. Sed foreign quaſi foreign apertè, & toto Impetu oppugnant Anabaptiſtae, Familiſtae, & hiſce omnibus Acutiores & Aſtutiores Sociniani, hanc poſitionem confirmat variis Argumentis Irrefrigabilibus, & adverſariorum objectionibus reſponſa dedit.
Chriſt ſatisfied the Juſtice of God, not Commutative but Diſtributive, and Judicial, as well Remunerative as Vindicative, not Precariouſly, or by way of Impetration only, or Metaphorically, but Really, Meritoriouſly, and Fully, not omitting any thing that in ſtrict Juſtice ought to be done, whatever was requiſite to our Salvation.
Chriſt by his Obedience and Death did fully diſcharge the Debt of all thoſe, that are thus Juſtified, and did make a proper, real and full ſatisfaction to his Fathers Juſtice, [i. e. for all them that ſhould believe.] Aſſemb. Confeſſ. c. 11. §. 3.
And Mr. Neonomian, I muſt not forget to tell you that there is nothing more frequent than for miſtaken Men to tell others how much they are miſtaken, as you do tell Mr. Antinomian about the Scape-Goat.
Neonom.
I ſay he miſtakes the Type of the Scape-Goat, becauſe the Scape-Goats carried their Sins into the Wilderneſs, who expreſſed Faith and Repentance by laying Hands on it, and confeſſing Sin, therefore the Sins of Men are taken away by Chriſt while they continue Impenitent and Ʋnbelieving.
Calviniſt.
You may ſee how in this matter you ſpeak after the Socinian, for they give this Interpretation of this Type; for though the Confeſſion of Sin over the Head of the Scape-Goat or Sacrifice, did hold forth Faith and Repentance, yet there's a difference between an Act Typifying God's Imputation of Sin unto Chriſt, and an Act teſtifying our Faith concerning God's Imputation of Sin to Chriſt. Norton againſt Pinch, p. 49. So Ainſworth, There's nothing more plainly holds forth Chriſt's bearing away our Sins to be remembred no more. So Dr. Prid. Quemadmodum etiam Hircus iſte Azazel ſive Emiſſo…is, habuit impoſita ſuper caput ipſis populi peccata, Levit. 16.21, 22. Haud alitèr Chriſto contigit, quem propoſuit Deus, foreign, ipſius, Rom. 3.25. Prid. de ſatisf.
As that Azazel or Scape-Goat had the Sins of the People laid on his Head, and ſo was ſent into the Wilderneſs, Lev. 16.21, 22. ſo Chriſt was dealt with, whom God ſet forth for a Propitiation through Faith in his Blood, to ſhew forth his Righteouſneſs, Rom. 3.25. which thoſe Sacrifices did manifeſtly point out (however they fell ſhort in themſelves) yet in relation to the Antitype they were not only Expiatory but alſo Satisfactory, whence the ſatiſfaction wrought by the Antitype is the more ſtrongly argued. Praelect. de ſatisf.
Mr. Norton. We may diſtinguiſh between the being of Juſtification, and being Juſtified, between Juſtification in the Abſtract, and Juſtified the Concrete; that being without the receiving Subject; this conſidered, together with the receiving Subject, viz. the Believer's Juſtification conſidered in the Abſtract Sence, and in it ſelf (in which ſence it ſignifies Remiſſion of Sins and Righteouſneſs to Acceptation prepared, though not yet conferred on the Elect) hath before Faith a Being, not only in the purpoſe of God, but alſo in the Covenant between the Father and the Son, and the Mediator, and in the purchaſe of Chriſt; this truth held forth in the Goſpel makes the object of Faith, and thus the Object is before the Act. Orthod. Evan. p. 214, 215.
Mr. Perkin's ſpeaks, Chriſt is firſt Juſtified, Acquit of our Sins, and we Juſtified in him. On Gal. 3.16.
Dr. Ameſ. Our Freedom or Diſcharge [liberatio noſtra] from Sin and Death was not only determined in the Decree, but alſo granted and communicated to us in Chriſt before it's perceived by us, Rom. 5.10, 11. Medul. c. 24.
The ſentence of Juſtification was conceived in the Mind of God by the Decree of Juſtifying, Gal. 3.8. 2. It was pronounced in Chriſt our Head when riſen from the Dead, 2 Cor. 5.19. 3. It's vertually pronounced from the firſt relation, which reſults from Faith wrought in the Heart, Rom. 8.1.14. 4. This Sentence is expreſly pronounced by the Spirits witneſſing with our Spirits our Reconciliation to God, Rom. 5.5. C. 1. C. 27. §. 9.
Mr. Rutherford. There is a Juſtification in the Mind of God Eternal, and a Juſtification in time terminated in the Conſcience of a Believer, Exercit. Apologet. per gratia, p. 45. He wrote againſt the Antinomian; and therefore this Teſtimony you have no pretence to refuſe.
Dr. Twiſs ſpeaks, and ſaith, The Righteouſneſs of Chriſt was ours before we did believe, ours I ſay in reſpect of Right; becauſe in the Intention both of the Father and the Son it was performed for us, though not in reſpect of Poſſeſſion and Enjoyment. Vind. Grat. l. 1. p. 2. § 25. N. 5. p. 197.