our stead 2. That the Socinians have wretchedly perverted the true Intendment of these Texts by glossing and diluting their true Intendment thus he died for us gave himself for us That is say they for our Good indeed but not properly in our stead 3. That they may give some colour to their Subterfuges they assign some certain Benefits to the Death of Christ as to give us an Heroick Example of Suffering whatever Persecutions for the Profession of the Christian Religion and to confirm the Truth of his Doctrine by sealing it with his Blood and some few others 4. In return to which we say 1. That it was a far greater Good that Christ by his Death procured for us Dan. 9. 24. To finish Transgression to make an end of Sins to make reconciliation for Iniquity to bring in everlasting Righteousness In order to which p. 26. The Messiah must be cut off but not for himself And Heb. 9. 26. Now once in the end of the World hath he appeared to put away sin by the Sacrifice of himself 2. We say that these and other ends of his Death and Sufferings could never have been procured had not Christ according to the Father's Ordination and his own consent suffer'd in our stead and made himself an expiatory and propitiatory Sacrifice And 3. We say that all the Ends which the Socinians have assigned to the Death of Christ might have been attained without the Death of Christ the Doctrine was confirmed by Miracles and the encouragement to suffer the utmost for the Christian Religion was from the Promises of present assistance under them and the Recompence of Reward to them 5. That the satisfying Divine Justice in our stead and procuring thereby our good are by no means to be considered as opposite but subordinate For as I would answer an Antinomian let him give us one Instance in which Christ suffered in our stead which did not Terminate in our Good So would I say to a Socinian let him shew me an Instance of any Spiritual Good which he could possibly procure or purchase without suffering in our stead And here is the great Demonstration of the Divine Goodness that he has not separated his own Glory from the Spiritual and Eternal Good of the Elect and thus has our Blessed Redeemer secured both the Demands of Justice and at the same time the Salvation of the Elect. To draw to a Conclusion of this Discourse You observe that our Author 's singular Gift and Talent is Misrepresentation and this great Gift wherever he had it or how he came by it I know not he exercises through his whole Defence to revile me as a Soc inian an English Unitarian this he brings in by Head and Shoulders Vapours with it Triumphs in it over looking that thro the whole Rebuke this Calumny had been abundantly obviated of which I will now give you over-abundant evidence Reb. p. 6. That Christ was made Sin a Sacrifice for sin that he bore the Curse due for sin is so express the Language of the Scripture that he who denies the former must disbelieve the latter Reb. p. 8. Certainly when Christ our only and ever Blessed Mediator stood in our place and stead when he made his Soul an Offering for sin when the Lord laid on him the Iniquities of us All There was a Change of Christ's Person for Sinners He was substituted in their room and stead Again ibid. There is a Change all own it there was so under the Law Iustice allowed that the Offender should live the Sacrifice die There is so under the Gospel that Christ suffered the believing sinner is discharged just as Abraham sacrificed the Ram by God's own appointment for that is in the stead of Isaac In a word As I have always uniformly asserted that Christ suffered and satisfied in our stead so shall I always Assert that Christ suffered and satisfied for our good and tho I never affirmed that Christ died or suffered only for our good which is the falshood the Author would impose upon the Reader and my self so I did Assert That it was impossible he should die for more than our good seeing he was pleased to make the Salvation and eternal good of those whom the Father had given him whom he had in his Eye and upon his Heart the great Commanding End unto which he referred all his Obedience Active and Passive so that Christ had nothing more nothing farther nothing beyond that in his Eye But of these things thus far Sir I am yours as you know c LETTER III. Of Christ's being our Surety SIR You come a little too quick upon me other and better Work engaged my Thoughts and Time that I lost the last Post and 't was with some Difficulty that I saved this I will not dispute with you why you caused me to break the Thread of my Discourse about Commutation of Persons c. and are now urgent to give you my Opinion about Christ's Suretiship however I will comply I had but little concern with the Reporter in this Matter only I offered my humble Advice Reb. p. 46. Not to insist so strictly upon the Terms of Debt and Debtor because if he supposed sin to be only a Pecuniary Debt and the sinner to stand obnoxious only as such a Debtor to God as the Creditor he has betray'd the Cause he seems so Zealous to defend to the Socinians And because I thought he might give some Deference to the Learning and Authority of the Bishop of Worcester I seconded my Advice with a Caution from him The true state of the Controversie says he has been rendered more obscure by the Mistakes of some who have managed it with more Zeal than Iudgment That Christ paid a proper and rigid satisfaction for the Sins of Men under the Notion of a Debt This was the Caution the Bishop gave and that was the Counsel which I gave to both which the Defender was too proud to hearken But the same Learned Person has in a late Letter to Mr. D. W. superadded weighty Reasons to his Caution p. 60. This Christ's putting on the Person and standing in the place of a Debtor I have shewed long since to be a very wrong Notion of Christ's Satisfaction which in effect gives up the Cause to the Socinians For if Sins be considered as Debts God may freely forgive them without disparagement of his Wisdom and Iustice without Satisfaction And the Right of Punishment then depends on God's absolute Dominion and satisfaction must be by way of Compensation but I cannot but wonder at the Author of the M. S. that he doth at the same time assert our Sins considered as Debts and yet the Necessity of Vindicative Iustice for what Vindicative Iustice belongs to a Creditor May not a Creditor part with his own Right and forgive what and whom he pleases without any violation of Iustice I can hardly think that those who write so rudely and inconsistently ever penetrated into
these Matters in their Thoughts but only take up with a set of Phrases and common Expressions among those they converse with which they look on as the Standard and Measure of Truth about these Matters From this Day forward I give up the B as a lost Man among all the Antinomians but tho they can easily despise his Authority they cannot so readily answer his Reasons And yet there is one Argument against their Notion of a Money-Surety which will probably prevail more with them because it 's drawn from the Prejudice it does their own Interest than twenty drawn from the mischief it does to the Cause and Concern of God or Christ. There is a Notion that obtains among the Antinomians That God in that black and sorrowful juncture when our Saviour bore the Punishment of our sins hated his Son as a Man hates a Toad Now if Christ paid the uttermost Farthing of that Debt whereof all the Sons of Adam were non-solvent not able to pay the least Farthing what reason can be assigned why God should hate him or be angry with him I am well assured of our Author 's good Nature in this case that if any one would pay him the desperate Debt of a sorry hundred Pounds on the behalf of a Decocted Bankrupt that was not worth a Groat he would love him so far as ill Nature is capable of love as long as he lived Yet still the Defence adheres to the Good Old Cause p. 16. That Satisfaction taken strictly and properly is solutio Debiti the Payment of a Debt wherein I take the liberty to differ from him and that Satisfaction and Solution are two things and differ as much as the giving the idem and the Tantundem do but in this unnecessary Quarrel I have no call to engage and yet after all the Defence seems to stagger and totter as if he had no plerophory in the Case but that this very Solutio Debiti is nothing but a suffering the Punishment due to our Sins It may be seasonable to hearken to the Reverend and Learned Dr. Owen upon this Subject in his Appendix to the Doctrine of Satisfaction p. 221. It is otherwise in Personal guilt than in Pecuniary Debts In these the Debt it self is only intended the Person only obliged with reference thereunto In the other the Person is firstly and principally under the Obligation And therefore when a Pecuniary Debt is paid by whomsoever it be paid the Obligation of the Person himself unto Payment ceaseth ipso facto Let the Reader hence see the true Reason why all our Antinomians contend so earnestly that sin must be considered as a Pecuniary Debt because then upon Christ's Satisfaction which they call the Payment of the Debt all the Elect must be discharged and then indeed there 's no need of Faith or Repentance in order to the Pardon of sins but the Doctor goes on But in things criminal the guilty Person himself being firstly immediately and intentionally under the Obligation to Punishment when there is introduced by Compact a vicarious Solution in the substitution of another to suffer tho he suffer the same absolutely which those should have done for whom he suffers yet because of the Acceptation of his Person to suffer which might have been refused and could not be admitted without some Relaxation of the Law Deliverance of the guilty Persons cannot ensue ipso facto but by the intervention of the Terms fixed on in the Covenant or Agreement for an admittance of the Substitution It appears from what hath been spoken that in this matter of Satisfaction God is not considered as a Creditor and Sin as a Debt and the Law as an Obligation to the Payment of the Debt and the Lord Christ as paying it c. To subjoyn any thing of my own to the Reason of two such great Men would be but to light a Candle to the Sun and yet it may be permitted to observe a few things about Christ's Suretiship 1. The Term Surety is Sacred Canonical not to be violated with profanc and unwasht Hands We therefore give that Reverence to it which we owe to Divine Revelation and if those other Terms and Phrases about which the Quarrel has been so scalding-hot could plead the same priviledge that they had the Stamp of Ius Divinum upon them it had prevented or soon silenced the Debates about Words tho some diversity of Thought might have arisen about the extent of the Signification 2. The Apostle is express Heb. 7. 22. Iesus was made a Surety of a better Covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And yet the same Apostle continuing to intreat of the same Subject in the next Chapter Heb. 8. 6. stiles the same Jesus the Mediatour of a better Covenant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which would tempt one that is used to search out the Mind of God by comparing one Scripture with another to think that a Mediatour of a better Covenant and the Surety of a better Covenant are Expressions of the same Latitude and exactly equivalent one to the other 3. This better Covenant whereof Christ is Mediator or Surety being a Mutual Covenant wherein God engages to be our God and engages us as we engage our selves to be his People Christ undertakes on the behalf of both for Gal. 3. 20. A Mediator is not a Mediator of one He therefore undertakes with both and for both nor can any be meet to bring God and Man into one Covenant and preserve them both inviolably in that one Covenant but he who is God and Man in one Person 4. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is but once found in the New Testament as applied to Christ receives no prejudice thence as to its Divine Authority as to whatever Truth is contained therein for even the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are of Divine Inspiration 5. Yet that it is but once used is some inconvenience to our understanding the just and adequate import of it for when we meet with a word frequently used it stands in divers References to the Antecedents and Consequents which by a due comparing them may reflect much useful light into its signification 6. We have not much relief from its Etymology only that he that is our Surety must be one near or near of Kin to us for seeing that Sin was committed in the Humane Nature it seems reasonable that if God will so far Relax the Law as to admit a Surety or Mediator yet that he must be of the same Nature with the Offenders for whom he is so Heb. 2. 14 16. For as much as the Children were partakers of Flesh and Blood he also took part of the same For he took not on him the Nature of Angels but the Seed of Abraham he took And the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is parallel to the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denotes one near of Kin who thereby had a Right to Redeem Ruth 3. 13. 7. It is a most
Humble thee that what carries the Appearance of Great Honour is if well consider'd a Real Burden to be surcharged with the Common Titles of the Iudicious and Learned the Courteous and Candid the Impartial and Indifferent and whatever other goodly Epithites a wretched Cause may need or a fruitful Invention can produce either to blind thy Judgment or bribe thy Affections It may serve for thy Mortification in some degree that thou art Postponed from the Preface to the Postscript from the Van to the Rear and that thou who hast commonly pretended to Ride in State on the Fore-Horse art degraded to come behind with the Portmanteu However lay aside for a while thy Prejudice and Passion thy Interest and Party and consider seriously a few things before I give thee a long Farewell I. I will give thee the good News that our Author is at last become more Orthodox than when he wrote his Report for then he gave us his Substance of the Gospel which had no Iustifying Faith in 't no Repentance in order to Pardon no Regeneration no Conversion no Holiness no new Heart and therefore no new Obedience Rejoyce therefore with us all that he is now come home to himself return'd to the Truth p. 43. Our Sins being the Meritorious Cause of Christ's Sufferings and his Sufferings a proper Punishment of our Sins for the Satisfaction of Divine Iustice that whoever believes on him may be Acquitted and Saved But it is not intended that the Filth of our Sins which is distinct from the Guilt was upon Christ or that he was any otherways Criminal in God's Account than by the Imputation of our Sins to him Say not Reader this is utterly inconsistent with that Scheme of Religion the Report has given us for I am willing to deal much more favourably than he will with Mr. W. and let his Words pass for his Meaning however irreconcileable they are to other places But again Appeal p. 8. We Reject the Opinion of those who hold That upon transferring the Guilt of our Sins to Christ he is to be esteemed the Person that committed all the Sins of those for whom he Died or that the Turpitude and Filth of our Sins was transferred upon him which is a Notion equally False Blasphemous and Imposible Besides nothing can be Renounced by us with greater Indignation than such a Change of Persons as implies that we are actually discharged from Punishment whilst Unbelievers or Impenitent I rejoyce heartily that our Author is once more given to Change and that for the better and that we have at length heard some Tidings of Faith and Repentance in order to our Discharge from Punishment which were wholly lost in the Report So much do we owe to the seasonable Deaths of two Antinomians under whose Influences he then was and to the Lives of two Sound Divines under whose Awe he now is II. Reader thou maist observe that the Author whether Defender or Appellant has the oddest way of answering a pinching Objection that ever any Respondent in the World us'd which is not by shewing the Weakness of it but by lending more strength to it One notable Instance I have already given in the Matter of Fact When the Report had affirmed the First Paper gave Satisfaction to the most Learned of both Parties The Rebuke replyed That it gave no Satisfaction at all to Mr. Cole and Mr. Mather And those two surely might be reckon'd among the most Learned of one Party To which he rejoyns That for some other Reasons they declined Subscription where instead of Answering he confirms by Reasons tho secret Reasons that they declined Subscription which is not to Answer but Confess the Objection The Objection was that they did not Subscribe and he very officiously without my asking gives an Account why they did not Subscribe But I shall now give an Instance or two more of this way of answering Objections from his Appeal 1 Instance Appeal p. 18. he tells us That Iesus Christ as our Surety entred into the same Bond with us and that he by virtue of the Sanction of the Law of Works was obliged to suffer for our Sins and for the Proof of this mighty Assertion he quotes Heb. 7. 22. Iesus was made the Surety of a better Testament To this Mr. W. answers Christ was called the Surety of the better Testament and therefore not of the Law of Works which in all probability was not the better Testament but the worse of the two that is it was our less good And to speak with impartiality it sounds harshly to my Ears That Christ being called the Surety of a better Testament that is of the Covenant of Grace should prove him the Surety of a worse Covenant that is of the Covenant of Works Now how does the Appellant take off the Objection Why he brings in Curcellaeus making the same Objection and that is all his Answer But still the Objection is the same whoever makes it and stands where it did in its full strength till he fairly removes it when therefore and not till then he shall prove that the Covenant of Works is the better Testament he shall prove that Christ was the Surety of it But if the Covenant of Grace be the better Covenant of the two and Christ be made or constituted the Surety of that Covenant he must bring other Texts to prove that Christ is the Surety of the Covenant of Works which will be the more difficult for him to do because the Title of Surety applied to Christ is not used in any other Text in the whole New Testament 2. Instance The Author of the Reasonableness of Christianity says the Appeal p. 37. To the end he might more plausibly expose those parts of the Christian Faith which relate to Iustification insinuated as if they had been such abstruse Matters that tho the Dissenters contended so fiercely about 'em as to divide the Communion and separate upon them yet their Teachers confess that they understand not what it is that our Differences are about This is I confess a most sharp Weapon and thrown with a strong Arm It would rejoyce me to see a good Answer to it and that I conceive is that our Judgment about these Points of Satisfaction and Justification are most clearly laid down in the Confessions of the Church of England those of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster and at the Savoy and we know well what our Differences are about them But the Appellant has written several Pieces and this last among or above the rest that has justified the Objection which is his peculiar way of answering and rendred these Doctrines unintelligible and his poor Clients may now answer him as they did their Advocates Fecistis probe incertior sum multo quam dudum He has misled his Followers first into the Wilderness and then out of their Wits so many Postulata so many things begged others borrowed some supposed others presupposed and from these so