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
a Sinner But further Display Epist. informs us That our coming to Christ is our believing on him but come unto Christ we cannot without Faith and Repentance But then the Report leaves out Repentance wholly Name and Thing from his Substance of the Gospel either as necessary to pardon of Sin or Salvation And yet further p. 66. Prop. 1. On the Account of Christ's Sufferings in Humane Nature all Mankind in some sense is so far Redeemed from the Misery in which antecedently unto the Promise of Christ's Death they did lie that they are now in a much happier Condition than the fallen Angels not only on the Account of their receiving at least a temporary Reprieve from everlasting Flames but also because their Salvation is become possible and yet now poor D. W. shall be persecuted for an Arminian a Socinian a Baxterian for one Moiety of this Doctrine Once more p. 68. They who receive least receive one Talent and have given them sufficient for the enabling them to do more towards the saving of their Souls than they actually do and if those Men do actually improve the Common Helps vouchsafed them they may for ought any Man can prove to the contrary receive such further Assistances as may have a special influence in enabling them to turn sincerely to God through Iesus Christ. This was Arminius all over Facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam So that the Reporter if he be the Man was in those Days a downright Baxterian and an upright Williamite if common Grace could have kept him so What strange Revolutions may seventeen Years produce In half that time a Man's Interest may change and that may warp him his Dependences may change and that may pervert him New Friends and Alliances may beget new Counsels and above all this blessed Change may be the Result of an implacable Enmity against some one Man which may oblige him to alter his Principles in mere spight and to face about to the other Extream However that be it shall be no Concern of mine to compromise the Quarrel whether the Report and the Display came from the same Mint and if so the Report has wretchedly Clipt what the Display had Coyn'd and the Display is now splayed § 3. A third Thing to be removed is what will administer a pleasing Diversion to the Reader so it will discover much Malice or Ignorance in our Author In p. 72. The Defender of the Faith for divers Reasons to himself best known is pleas'd to revive the Memory of an Affair depending between the Reverend Mr. R. Baxter and a certain Author who above twenty Years ago appeared in Print with an odd Title Antisozzo This Author you must know had confidently enough asserted That never any Man in his Wits affirm'd that the Righteousness of Christ was the formal Cause of our Iustification And for ought I can yet see he had sufficient ground for his Confidence for all the Reformed Divines I have yet met withal do with one consent maintain That the Imputing of Christ's Righteousness is the formal Cause but the Righteousness of Christ it self is the Material Cause of our Justification that is it bears some good Analogy with or proportion to the Material Cause But Mr. B. treats this Assertion and the Asserter with some scorn and tells him That Dr. Davenant who was far from being a Mad-man assures us That it 's the Common Sense of all Divines that the Righteousness of Christ imputed to us is the formal Cause of our Iustification Now I appeal to all that have a small glimmering of Understanding and an equal quantity of Impartiality to use it Whether these two Propositions Christ's Righteousness is not the formal Cause and Christ's Righteousness Imputed is the formal Cause of our Iustification do carry any the least face of Contradiction The Righteousness of Christ is the Material Cause the Imputing of the Righteousness is the Formal Cause The Righteousness of Christ is the Matter or Thing to be Imputed the Imputation of the Matter or Thing is the Form The Righteousness of Christ is the result of Christ's Active and Passive Obedience which he as a Priest offer'd up to God for us but Imputation is an Act of God by which he adjudges that Righteousness to a believing Sinner and thereon accepts him as Righteous in his sight And surely Men may easily distinguish between the Act of God and the Undertaking of the Mediator I can readily conceive a difference between a Robe laid up in the Wardrobe and the putting on that Robe by the Hand that has Right to dispose on 't Christ's Righteousness is this Robe but it 's God's putting it on the believing Sinner that covers his Nakedness Let me give the Reader one Quotation from Wollebius Compend Christ. Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 30. § 11. Materia justificationis active sumptae est tota Christi Satisfactio qua peccatis nostris paenas debitas persolvit obedientiam Legi perfectam praestitit § 13. Forma ejus activè intellectae est totius satisfactionis Christi imputatio quae tota quoque nostra est non secus ac si ipsi praestitissemus So that Christs Righteousness is the Matter the Imputation of that Righteousness is the Form of our Justification Thus much has been said to clear that Author from Mr. B's Indignation but I will defeat our Authors Design to commit me with that great Mans Memory I will not contend with his Ashes but draw the Curtains softly about him and leave him to his own Everlasting Rest. Yet give me leave to Animadvert upon our Authors Confidence who calls this Assertion That Christs Righteousness is not the formal Cause of our Iustification An overbold rash and untrue Assertion Whereas nothing could be more modest wary and true But we see to what height of extravagancy interest vain-glory and the concupiscence of Cavilling with other Vanities will transport a Reporter or Defender I am Confident that these Truths Christs Righteousness is the material Cause the Imputation of that Righteousness the formal Cause of our Iustification are owned by this Author in his Heart what Temptation therefore he could have to debauch his Pen to call it or them an Untruth I cannot Conjecture unless he was resolved through Thick and Thin over Shooes and Boots through Truth and Falshood per fas aut nefas to Defame and if he had had Wit enough to ridicule that Writer or the Rebuker § 4. But now all Hands aloft our Author has brought from the Neighbourhood of the Lay-stall at Puddle-Dock to his Printers all those Ordures which will imploy all the City Scavengers I hope the Reader has his Florentine Balsom or whatever defensative may be more Potent ready to secure him against the Stench Page 84 Def. He informs us That there 's not the least pretence for his Insinuating that the Reporter is a Favourer of Dr. Crisps Notions No 'T is well an Insinuation is a small
thus he glories We shall find the very Phrase of Christ's dying in our Person inserted into the Confession of their Faith Well! we long to hear the Words He quotes them thus It became the Messiah and Redeemer to be true God and true Man because he was to suffer the Punishment due for our Sins and to appear in our Person before the Iudgment Seat of the Father to suffer for our Transgression and by Death to destroy him that had the Power of Death Why then here 's an end of this business unless our Author be as deceitful a Translator as he is a Reporter No doubt the meer English Reader thinks he has now done his own Work and my Business and that he has produced one Confession which really asserts that Christ suffer'd in our Person and I confess my self one of those Credulous Souls that thought and many others do still think that either his Conscience or his Credit would have check'd him from imposing upon us by a False Translation But I am now once more convinced that Interest and the Good Old Cause will over-rule both those sorry things Credit and Conscience for the Latine Article runs thus That Christ did appear Quasi in persona nostra As it were in our Person Did he then flatter himself that none of his Readers could read or construe a word of familiar Latine Or did he think it worth his while to sham the World for an Hour Or is there such great Advantage gotten by a Lying Tongue that is but for a moment A poor sorry moment till his Neighbour comes and searches him out with his Falsifications The Reverend Fathers of that Synod who Penn'd that Article were wise and well knowing that the Phrase of Christ's dying in our Person was harsh and might suffer evil Constructions did mollifie and qualifie it with a quasi that it might not grate the Ears nor grieve the Conscience of any nor choak the Faith of the Subscribers or Assenters and I cannot but wonder that even our Author should give it us true in Latine and yet prevaricate in the English unless he considered that not one in twenty that would be cheated by the Version could undeceive themselves from the Original I only add That if this Phrase sweetned with a quasi or some such limiting Term will do him any Service I can help him to one from the great and judicious Calvin who upon 2 Cor. 5. 21. thus expresses himself Christus quodammodo personam nostram suscepit But I will expose this Fraud no further at present only will note That tho he pretends to have found one and but one or to speak correctly not one instance for this Phrase yet he cannot pretend to have found one Example in any Confession no not a Shread or Scrap of one for his other celebrated Phrase of a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners But these things we shall meet withal again and again when we come to the main of the Cause let this suffice for a tast of our Author's Integrity and to teach us what we must expect from him in the sequel of his Defence Reader Perhaps thou hast seen how the Heron pursued by the Mounting-Hawk slices upon her Enemy or heard how the Hollanders routed the poor Iaponese by charging their Artillery with Excrements when all their Ammunition was spent Or of that Creature in Germany that defends it self against the Hounds with the Artillery of its Posteriours The same Defence has our Author made and whether his Close-Study or his Close-stool affords him better supply I must leave rather to the Arbitrement of thy Nose than of thy Understanding An Advertisement to the Reader HAving received many Letters from Persons of great Learning relating to the Matters in Controversie between the Reporter and my self I have composed my Answer to the Defence out of those respective Returns to the said Letters which Method I conceive will contribute not a little to the Diversion and Delight the Ease and Refreshment of the Ingenious Reader who may now at his own Choice entertain himself and his Thoughts with which of the Subjects he shall please LETTER I. Of a Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners WOrthy Sir You assign me a difficult Province and I fear 't is not A single Paper that will absolve this Business But that I may set you Right in this Matter which the Report and Defence have so wretchedly perplex'd and imbarrassed give me leave to proceed in my own Method § 1. I have readily granted That there is a Change of Christ's Person for sinners That God the Father graciously admitted a Mediator to undertake the desperate Cause and Case of Sinners to suffer and die in their room and stead That our Lord Jesus Christ readily accepted of and consented to this Overture and accordingly in due time did actually offer up himself a Sacrifice to God by which he made a proper full and perfect Satisfaction to the Divine Iustice Now as this is freely owned by all that wear and deserve the Name of Protestants so it fully tho briefly expresses The Doctrine of Satisfaction To this the Defence says That the Rebuke knows not what to make of it which you are to look upon as one of his Insolent Huffs to which contemptuous and opprobrious Language I am now so habituated that I am almost hardned against it But is it so hard to know What to make of a change of Christ's Person in our stead Then 1. How shall we know what to make of the Doctrine of Sacrifices under the Law which will teach us that where God allow'd the Sacrifice to die he permitted the Offender to escape and if Christ was admitted to suffer for our Sins and in our stead then we shall not suffer for our own 2. But if it be so difficult to make any thing of a change of Christ's Person for us how shall we make any thing of A change of Persons between Christ and us seeing that a single change must be presuppos'd to a double one And this was all that Grotius knew to make of it De satisf p. 71. Actus Dei de quo agimus est Punitio unius ad impunitatem alteri consequendam Thus Christ suffer'd that we might not suffer and Divine Justice punisht him that he might spare us Thus much Grotius made of it and let our Author make as much more of it as he can § 2. This Phrase A Commutation of Persons between Christ and Sinners is a Phrase of no necessity at all There are others of try'd and approved signification which have been examined by critical Heads and scanned upon curious Hands such as have passed Currant in all our sound Confessions of Faith Now why we should venture upon un-common Terms when the World is wide enough and our own Language copious enough I can see no Reason to oblige us But if they who inforce it have any secret Reasons to themselves to contend so
it All that our Saviour saith to this purpose is That he came to give his Life a Ransom for many Matth. 20. 28. And that his Blood was shed for many for the Remission of Sins Matth. 26. 28. What other Change of Persons is here implied but that of a Ransom a Sâ—crifice of Propitiation He that knew best sor what ends he suffered saith not one word of his taking upon himself the Person of Sinners in any other sense than as he suffered in their stead and for their Advantage There is yet an odd Farthing on the Score which I must account for This Phrase of acting in the person of another or sustaining the Person of another has ordinarily a sense not very creditable and commonly signifies to personate or represent the Person of another or take on the Disguise Mask or Vizor of another Thus Tully in that place so celebrated so mistaken by our Author Ego unus tres sustineo personas I act three parts So those Counterfeit Persons in the Roman Comedies were called Dramatis Personae and those other which only appear'd but spoke nothing were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mutae Personae Dumb Persons Now this minded me of the Counter-scuffle between Salmasius and Milton where the latter picks a Quarrel with the former for this very expression in Persona De parricidio apud Anglos in Persona Regis Admisso Now there is no doubt but Salmasius intended it of a Parricide committed upon the Person of that King but because he used that Phrase Milton falls on him with his usual briskness Quid quaeso est parricidium in Persona Regis admittere Quid in Persona Regis Quae latinitas unquam sic locuta est But our Author to vindicate this expression gives this Answer p. 27. The Reason why Milton was so severe upon Salmasius was not so much because Salmasius used the word Persona as because he mistook the Ablative for the Accusative Case and wrote in Persona when it should have been in Personam Regis Risum teneatis Was ever any thing spoken more Ridiculously I am satisfied Salmasius designed to write as he actually wrote in Persona and Milton had no Quarrel with him about the Case but exagitates the Phrase as improper and unbecoming so great a Grammarian as Salmasius had then the Vogue for in the Learned World And so the Answerer to Milton whether Father or Son p. 26. Ubi ille multiplex Barbarismus non simplex Fortasse an quod non dixerit Salmasius in Personam Regis sed in Persona O Barde Where the Answerer rejects this supposal with Scorn and Indignation that he should be thought to have mistaken the Ablative for the Accusative Case In a word Milton was a Person whose excellent Latin terse and smooth has recommended his Style to all that understand the Language The Merits of the Cause between him and his Antagonist I am not concern'd in but this has been taken for granted by many that his sharp and pungent Repartees pierced that great Critick's Heart nor could he long out-live that stinging Phrase with which he was persecuted by Milton 'T is highly improbable to me that the Old Man under this discomposure of Spirit could dress up a formal Answer to his Enemy in that short time of Hurry that he lived His Son might possibly out of his loose Papers stitch up that Cento which in a Postumus Piece appear'd under his Name which saw the Light when King Charles II. was Restored but whether it turn'd to account from his Patron or Client I am no more concern'd than I am what becomes of all our Phrase-Divinity and this is particular which our Author has so verbosely and operosely managed The Defender pretends highly to more than a smattering in the Civil Law and accordingly makes a huge chattering with the Terms of it The Socinians and our Author presume they have great advantage by ' em My Opinion is this that when they fall into judicious Hands good use may be made of them against the Socinians Our Gentleman has put 'em to the worst use that ever they were put to by any Protestant he gives us many Instances of Persons representing others managing and transacting the Cause of others which may illustrate Christ's undertaking for his Church upon a Throne of Grace for he has promis'd he will be their faithful Guardian John 14. 18. And not leave them Orphans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But tho this Civil-Law tells us of Embassadors that act by Commission and Instruction of Tutors and Pupils c. yet they do not furnish us with any Instance of any that laid down his Life in the stead of those they were intrusted by Nor indeed can we reasonably expect that the Body of the Civil-Law which out of two thousand Manuscripts or Fragments of MSS. was compiled into one in Iustinian's Time should have its Terms and Phrases adapted and suited to those sublime Mysteries or that the Inspired Penmen of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament should accommodate their Writings to that Body of Laws which they had never seen nor could have any Regard to But Sir I beg your pardon for this Digression and will hardly give you the like Offence However I am Sir Yours c. LETTER IX MISCELLANIES SIR There are a few Parcels scatter'd up and down our Author's Discourse which either I could not conveniently reduce to any Head or possibly thought 'em not worthy my notice or yours which upon second Thoughts I have comprised in this Letter § 1. The Report p. 8. has charg'd Mr. W. that he denied a Change of Persons between Christ and the Elect and that this Denial is so express that he leaves no room for a Distinction Limitation or Restriction or for owning it in any sense To this the Rebuke answer'd p. 38. That Mr. W. has left room enough for all the Distinctions that are proper to the matter in hand That Mr. W. denied nothing but what Dr. Crisp had affirm'd of this Change that there is no Contradiction between affirming a Change and denying a Change unless they be both ad Idem That he did not deny a Change simply and absolutely but only in a certain respect and restrictively That these things are obvious and plain to an ordinary Understanding Nor is there a more a futilous or foolish fallacy than to conclude a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter Now this Argument the Bishop of Worcester in his late Letter has abundantly cleared How can any Persons in common Ingenuity understand this otherwise than that he denied such a Change of Persons as Dr. C. affirmed Why then should such a sense be charg'd upon him which he disowns at the same time There must be something farther in thâ—â— matter than appears to an indifferent and Impartial Reader And so there is something farther something that lies deeper something that presses harder than appears to every one But still the Defence insists