express himself what he meant by For and From sin if Mr. G. had not been willing to mistake that I may say no more Yea but saith Mr. G. for sin is nothing else but from sin Herein your Medicine for the Plague deceived you otherwise you might have observed that for sin notes sin to be the impulsive cause of the Affliction whereas from sin notes sin to be avoided to be the final cause of the Affliction And these are not all one The Learned Grotius De satisfactione Christi cap. 1. hath observed That as often as this phrase for sins is joyned to words of suffering it alwayes signifieth the impulsive cause Which is most true if only the difference of the Type and the Anti-type be observed and the impulsive cause accordingly distinguished For if you grant Socinus but that which Mr. G. here affirmeth That for sin is all one with from sin he will easily frustrate the satisfaction and expiation of Christ For if his dying for sin note nothing else but the final cause viz. That he might thereby teach us to avoid sin then Christ in regard of any Expiation of Sin hath utterly dyed in Vain Now concerning punishments and chastisements for sin whether they be incident to Believers or not Although Mr. G. by his slight and perfunctory passing it over hath not given occasion of any full and large discourse but have taken up the most trivial Arguments whereunto he cannot be ignorant That satisfactory Answers have been given unto which he hath said nothing at all for the satisfaction of the Reader I shall say a few things briefly 1. These words of Punishing and Chastizing for Sin can denote nothing else but the Meritorious and Impulsive cause namely That sin is the meriting cause and chastisements and punishments are the merited effects This Grotius whom I cited before hath fully evinced against Socinus whose words are these It cannot be shewn that these words ob peccata or propter peccata that is for sin especially where they are joyned to sufferings are ever taken otherwise in the Holy Scripture than in this signification of merit Where also he gives satisfaction to those Scriptures which were by Socinus cited to the contrary Now if any part of the just merit or desert of the sins of believers be notwithstanding the satisfactory sufferings of Christ laid upon believers to bear them in their own persons then it is most evidently apparent that Christ did not or did not sufficiently bear the full merit and desert of sin And that these sufferings being inflicted in a way and course of justice Christ hath not by his death fully satisfied the demands of Justice then which nothing can be said more dangerous and destructive to the very foundation of Christian faith Yet 2. I believe that sin as the impulsive cause and punishment or chastisement as the effect of sin may be considered two Wayes 1. In a Typical consideration 2. In a Moral I do not say that he did bear the whole Typical charge of sin pardon the expression I cannot meet with one more fit at this present for that were to make him the Type of himself That charge of sin was born wholly by the people of the old and typical Covenant both in their persons and administrations even until the very death of Christ wherein was exhibited the full Anti-type who only bore the sins of his people in the full merit and desert of them Morally or Really as Real is opposed to the Type For in the Death of Christ the Old Covenant with all its Types had an end and the New Testament or Covenant became in force Heb. 9.16 17. A Testament is of force after men are dead otherwise it is of no force at all whilst the Testator liveth But the Old Covenant did thereby decay wax old and vanish away Heb. 8.13 Yet as I said before several times and say it again that if it be possible the truth of what we hold might appear unto all men breaking through those many clouds of slander wherewith we have been and are encompassed I say that by the promise of the Messias or by the promised Messias they were all freely and perfectly before God justified they as we and we as they Act. 15.11 Christ bore the full Moral or Real charge of their sins in the same measure as he did ours Only I say with all approved Protestants that the Typical and Subservient Administration or Covenant did exceedingly darken this upon their spirits not to hinder the benefits of Christ that they should not so spiritually come upon them But only that the enjoyment should not be with that Lustre and Glory as they are set forth to be enjoyed in the New Testament whereunto therefore in some measure the Gospel is restrained and it is by way of glorious eminence styled the Kingdom of Heaven Even that administration of the Gospel of the grace of God here on earth Mat. 3.2 and 26.29 So then we say that as all Types ceased at the death of Christ so likewise did all Typical charging of sin therewith all cease 3. Albeit we acknowledg the same or rather more hard things to flesh and blood do usually befall the children of the New Testament then did those of the Old in regard of the sharpness whereof and the event also that they have in their conversation they are somtimes called chastisements or corrections or Rebukes Yet their great consolation is that it is not the good pleasure of God their well pleased and fully reconciled Father that they should in any way bear the desert and merit of there own sin charged upon them either typically as though the true Lamb of God which was to bear the sins of the world and take them away were not yet come or Really as though there were no Lamb of God at all for them that either had or ever would suffer for their sins So that their present sufferings be they never so smart yet are but trials and exercises of faith and therein pure testimonies of love not of Anger or of Punitive Justice to the spiritual eye which discerneth all things even as they are the dispensations not only of a Father but also of a well-pleased Father in and through his beloved Son Matt. 3.17 For although here below and to the eyes of flesh all things seem to be black cloudy and tempestuous yet the eye of faith mounts up above the clouds and there discerns the full serenity of Heaven notwithstanding the contrary appearances here below And if in the wayes of God herein towards us there seems to be some reference unto sin yet is it not to sin in its own nature as it is the transgression of Gods Law calling for justice from God in some way or other for so it was utterly purged and done away by the Death of Christ Heb 1.3 1 Joh. 3.5 But as they are grievances unto Gods people as they are a continual trouble and vexation unto
the Administrations of the Old Testament were of things which were of themselves of several natures some were Ceremonial as the Sacrifices their Temples their Tabernacles their Altars and such like some were Moral as their Prayers Repentance Reformations and all the Duties of the Moral Law For the Ceremonies that they were Types of Christ and so ceased by the coming of the substance Christ himself is generally acknowledged onely some attribute unto them no efficacy at all but only a shaddowing out of Christ and his benefits who was to come others say they had a typical carnal and tâ—mporal efficiency in the Mosaical Church and Common-wealth proper to that Administration and answerable in some way to the benefits in the New That they by the Ordinance of God brought down upon that People temporal and outward blessings answerable to the spiritual and eternal blessings by Christ Which Question is largely discussed by Vossius wherein I shall not interpose because they that attribute most unto those Ceremonial performances yet bound the effect of them within the compass of the Old Testament so that they resigned up their keyes and power unto their Lord and King whose harbingers they were at his appearing But for the Actions and Administrations of the Moral Law that they also were in some sort typical is not so usually observed as the former yet it is no less true Who can deny but that Phineas his praying or executing of justice whether soever it was for the Hebrew will probably bear either a Moral Action and yet typically shadowing out unto us Christ our Great High-Priest by whose interceding for us with the Father he is pacified towards us So not a few Protestant Writers have interpreted it But what speak I of one Action when as Dr. Taylor hath published a Book wherein he discovers all along a Typical shadowing forth of Christ not only in the Ceremonial but also Moral Actions of most of the Antient Patriarcks Priests Judges Kings and Prophets But here I do not desire to dispute the Question but only as briefly as I can to explain my Judgment Therefore in such Moral Actions as these I observe Three Things First Their Moral Nature whereby they are of perpetual use both in the time of the Old Testament and of the New as Prayer Repentance and other Actions of Duty towards God and man are as necessary as ever they were in the time of the Old Testament and shall be by the true Children of Faith as much practised and in a more spiritual manner contrary to that false slander that passeth abroad concerning us That we let men loose from all duties of piety towards God or charity towards man against which false reproaches the Lord will in time arise to the Vindication of his People In the mean time they may be bold to commend their names and reputations unto Him into whose hands they have already committed their souls Secondly In these actions there is their typical effect whereby if they were good Actions in that Administration they wrought proportionable effects as Phineas his praying stayed the plague If they were evil actions they brought evil effects as David's numbring the People brought the plague his Adultery the death of the Child c. These effects I call typical because they are attributed to these actions as they do typically relate unto Christ and setting aside that relation such an effect should not have been attributed unto them As for Example the prayer of Phineas had not stayd the plague if he had not therein stood as a Type of Christ who is the onely one that turns away all evil from those that are his who because he was not so reveal'd in those times therefore it was requisite that it should be shaddowed out unto them in this and such like Types so that the effect is only ascribed to the Type in umbra in the shadow but to the thing typified in veritate in the truth So I think I may say that all actions even of the Moral Law do in this manner point unto Christ In like sort David's Adultery brought the death of the Child as the typical effect of that sin So that David in that consideration bare his own sin But how Onely as a Type of Christ as manifesting that the Saviour of the World that was to bear their sins was yet to come Yet did he not really bear his own sin no not in any degree For so it was wholly reserved for the Lord Christ upon whom it was charged to the uttermost who made a full satisfaction not only for the eternal but also the temporal punishment of all that belong unto him not only for those since Christ but even for all from the beginning of the world so that neither David nor any other of the Children of God in the Old Testament had ever had any sins charged on them had they not stood as Types of him that was to come to bear the sins of many neither ever had they sins charged upon them in the real positive nature of it if I may so speak for so it was only and wholly born by Christ for them but onely as I said in this typical consideration For Christ onely hath with one sacrifice perfected for ever those that are consecrated Heb. 10.14 He onely is the propitiation for our sins 1 Joh. 2.1,2 And this he did not onely for those since Christ but also for the sins that were past Rom. 3.25 to wit under the former Covenant Heb. 9.15 So then in the time of the New Covenant since the death of Christ there is no remembrance of sin neither upon Christ who is risen again from the dead without sin nor upon the faithful seeing they cannot now be shadows of Christ to come who is already come and by the lustre of his presence hath made all shaddows flee away So that the whole amounteth to that which I layd down in the beginning namely That where any thing is attributed to persons or actions which is Christs own peculiar that is to be understood of those persons or actions onely as they do typically relate unto Christ and ought not to be ascribed to any other person or action though otherwise of the same kind which have not this typical relation unto Christ The Reason is taken from that main foundation of Christian Religion to wit The satisfaction of Christ is compleat and all the Scriptures hold it forth as All-sufficient and compleat Thus have I Christian Reader given thee a short abridgment of my thoughts concerning the difference of the Testaments so far as it concerns the present matter in debate and as the present occasion would permit being willing rather to trespass upon thee by this digression than to suffer this matter altogether to pass untouched being of such moment both for the Vindication of the Truth and Us from so many slanders Hereafter if God permit I may have an opportunity to explain my self more largely in
translated upon their surety For there is no Anger in the Effects but in reference to Sin as the cause Wheresoever there is a rupture in the House there the storm drives in So whilst the Elect stand as Sinners they stand liable to Judgment I do not say there was ever an actual or positive Execution of the VENGEANCE of GOD due for sin upon the Elect For in that regard they have obtained not only a Reprieve but a Discharge But as their sin was by imputation derived upon Christ so punishing Justice Anger or Wrath pursued him and from him received a full Satisfaction for whatsoever the Elect had committed and so in him ceased in reference unto them But seeing Imputation of sin may be considered two wayes so also may the Anger Wrath or Execution of Justice likewise be considered either in the Type or Antitype First in the Type thus all the people of God in the Old Testament did more or less in a typical way bare iniquity not only in their sacrifices but also in their own persons yet so as nothing of what the Antitype did be darkned or impaired Their Sacrifices usually and their Works sometimes are said to expiate or appease Wrath or Anger 2 Chron. 12.12 which is all one What did they herein any of Christs work of Satisfaction No they did only pre-figure it and according to the nature of their Covenant as Types bare and as Types take away the imputation of Sin according to that carnal administratation then in being For otherwise if a real taking away of sin by these should be asserted then the Apostles reason would not stand strong in force that it is impossible that the Blood of Bulls or Goats should take away sin Heb. 10.4 yet the same Apostle affirmeth that they Sanctified to the purifying of the flesh Heb. 9.13 so also we may by the same reason say that it is impossible that the imperfect and sinful works of man should take away sin Yet might they in themselves by vertue of their subservient covenant sanctifie to an outward purifying of the flesh and in their Typical relation shaddow out that perfect and everlasting Expiation which was to come by the Death of CHRIST Now whereas it might be Objected That Moses by Prayer is said to stand in the breach to turn away his wrath Psal 106.23 That Phineas by executing judgment staid the plague That Noah Daniel and Job should deliver their own Lives by their Righteousness Ezek. 14.14 with infinite other such Examples in the Old Testament which have these with such like effects attributed unto them without any express mention of their Typical nature or reference unto their Antitype Christ I Answer that herein consisteth a great part of the Veil of the Old Testament that it did but very darkly point out to the Messias So that Expiations and Attonements are to a carnal eye attributed to the very Ceremony there being seldom or never with the Type any express mention of the Antitype whereby the more carnal Jews terminated their thoughts in the ceremony or action done But the New Testament hath clearly revealed that the whole Paedagogy was but a shaddow under which the people of God of Old were shut up unto the Faith that should afterward be revealed Gal. 3.23 And that fundamental argument of the Alsufficiency of the death and satisfaction of Christ so fully prosecuted by the Apostle in the 7 8 9 10. Chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews puts the matter beyond all Controversie That the Anger or Wrath of GOD could only be born Typically by the Children of the Old Testament seeing it could onely be born really by the Son of God But now Secondly As imputation of sin and thereby anger and wrath or execution of justice are considered in the Antitype so it is apparent that Christ did both really bare and take away all Anger due to the Elect for their sins as well of those that were before his time as of those that came after 1. He Bare all Anger First Because he bare all sin the cause or ground of this Anger Isa 53.5 1 Pet. 2.24 Secondly Because he bare all Punishments due to sin He was bruised for our Transgressions He suffered the Just for the Vnjust Thirdly It appears by the real effects in his sweating great drops of blood when no bodily Torment was upon him which is more than ever befel any man upon earth by the most extream torture but most eminently in that terrible hideous Out-cry wrung from him by the unconceivable weight of that wrath that lay upon him My God my God Why hast thou forsaken me 2. He took away all Anger And therefore it is said to be the Chastisement of our Peace which was upon him Isa 53.5 He is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placamentum the appeasement of our sin 1 Joh. 2.1,2 By him we have received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the attonement or reconciliation So that now to those that are in him there is no Anger but everlasting well-pleasedness and perfect favour established by a Covenant of Salt like that of Noah's without condition As I have sworn that the Waters of Noah shall no more go over the earth so have I sworn that I will not be angry with thee Isa 54.9 And that our sins and iniquities he will remember no more Heb. 8.12 Now to what Mr. G. hath Objected First For his Criticism that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth consuming wrath and the anger of an Enemy to destroy I Answer That his Observation will not hold for it is also used concerning the Anger of a Father or otherwise a Friend among men And David mâ—kes it Synonimous with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is most usually rendered Anger as Psal 6.1 Rebuke me not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in thine anger whereunto is added after the usual exegetical manner of the Psalmists and Prophets Neither chasten me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in thy hot displeasure where the latter Phrase is of the same signification with the former And David deprecates both alike so Psal 90.7 where if there be any difference the greater matter viz. Consumption is attributed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the latter viz. Trouble to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both are promiscuosly spoken of the Anger of a Friend and that of an Enemy It may be you will say that in this place is meant of the Anger of an Enemy I Answer That in God excepting that Typical Expression of Anger whereof I spake before there is no Anger at all in God towards a reconciled People such a one as he speaks of in the immediately foregoing words God hath no little Anger If his Anger be kindled but a little it is well with them that are out of the reach of it Blessed are all they that put their trust in him For who may stand in thy sight when once thou art angry Psal 76.7 Christ hath satisfied for the whole Anger little and great
English-man So in the natural body the suffering of a Toe is by Natural Union the suffering of a Head although no part of the Head be touched So might it be said of the Church of Corinth that She to wit in some of her Members was judged of the Lord for sin that She might not be condemned with the World although neither the whole Church was so iudged in all its particular Members absolutely considered no nor in any one of those who were truely Members by being united to the rest by one spirit And also She that is the Body of the Church of Corinth might be said to be chasten'd of the Lord in the removal of Corrupt Members from her that she might not be condemned with the World although those Corrupt Members in their absolute consideration in themselves were indeed condemned with the World The not observing the difference of Predications in this kind hath occasioned a wonderful Confusion in all points of Divinity whereas the diligent observing of them would very much clear and explicate great difficulties So then both according to the scope of the Text and the Analogy of Faith it may be expounded thus For this cause that is for the Prophanation of the Lords Supper by drunkenness and such like ver 21. many among you are weak and sickly and many sleep that is many of those Offenders of which he spake of before which ye retained among you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for if we did judge so the last Translation but it ought rather to be if we did discern not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if we did discern or sift our selves that is separate the Pretious from the Vile put away from our Communion such Notorious Offenders we that is the Church of Corinth being a Collective Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should not be judged viz. in such Corrupt Members and in the whole as relating to such Members but being judged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is being punished in such Members and so in the whole Body as having relation to them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we that is the Church of Corinth in our whole Body collectively taked are chastised nurtured or instructed of the Lord that we should not be condemned with the World that we might not be accounted a profane Society such as the World affords and that we might not in process of time become onely a Field consisting onely of Bryars and Thorns by the admittance and continuance of evil doers and the departure of the faithful we become a reprobate Society which shall be condemned with the World From hence without question it cannot be proved that any particular Elect Person â—bsolutely considered suffers in any measure the just desert of his sins which Christ onely hath effectually and perfectly and all-sufficiently undergone Thirdly Mr. G urgeth that Zachary was struck dumb because of his unbelief Luk. 1.20 I Answer that this is within the verge of the Old Testament which ends not till the death of Christ where the New begins Heb. 7. which appears by our Saviours submitting to all the Ordinances thereof even to the day of his death for he ate the Pass-over immediately before And by that Administration Zachary with the rest of the Children of God belonging to that Testament was yet under the School-master and so under the Whip which the Children of ripe Age are freed from Gal. 4.1,2,6,7 chap. 3.25 When the Apostle saith Now in the time of the New Testament ye are all the sons of God Gal. 3.26 He understandeth saith Paraeus on the place such sons of God as are not little ones under the school-masters ferula and the custody of Guardians as the Fathers were but such as are of ripe age made free and capable of their Fathers Inheritance He saith therefore that the condition of the Fathers and ours differs as much as an Heir that is an Infant differs from a Son that is of ripe Age. So Calvin vid. ipsum Mailor Fourthly His last place is that of Peter 1 Pet. 4.17,18 The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God as they are opposed to the wicked and ungodly saith Mr. Geree for it follows and if it begin at us what shall be the end of those that obey not the Gospel of God And if the Righteous are scarcely saved where shall the ungodly and sinner appear I Answer 1. That the House of God although it be by Vocation and Profession a Company of Saints and Godly People yet notwithstanding there may be in it Wheat and Tares good and bad not secret onely but sometimes open Offenders through the fault or connivance of those whom it concerns in reference unto which Offenders the Church may be said to have Judgments come upon it That God may first cleanse his own House by casting out of it that which offendeth and is unclean so that there are some that are onely in some that are in and of the House of God Now Judgment may begin at the House of God and yet as a Judgment it toucheth only the former And whereas it is said the Righteous are scarcely saved it is not because their salvation is in doubt or hazard for this same Apostle saith they are kept by the mighty power of God through faith unto salvation 1 Pet. 1.5 But he speaks in regard of the rending of their Members and the sore trials which in their own persons they should undergo so that they should in outward appearance have thir faith sifted to nothing if it were not that the foundation of the Lord standeth sure 2 Tim. 2.19 That the Lord changeth not and therefore the sons of Jacob the faithful are not consumed Mal. 3.6 2. That which Mr. G. takes for granted that this judgment is for Sin whereof he ought principally to have made proof is so far from being asserted in this Text that the clear contrary is evidently held forth 1. In ver 11. he calls this affliction a fiery tryal to try them a metaphor taken from Gold which is not cast into the fire to be punished but purified Yet this is the darkest expression In the next ver 13. he calls it a partaking of Christs Sufferings and bids them therein rejoyce Surely it were very unseemly and incongruous to see an offender rejoyce in suffering the just desert of his offences I am confident if we should make such an exhortation Mr. G. would say as he doth very falsly and without ground in the end of this Section that we went about to keep people from godly Sorrow In the next words ver 14. he goeth higher calling it Reproach not for Sin but for the name of Christ and saith that therein the Spirit of God and of Glory did rest upon them And in the last place both negatively in ver 15. and affirmatively in ver 16. he calls it suffering not as a murtherer not as a thief not as an evil doer c. but
tampering with comfort from their own Works and not be content with what may be had by that sole sure Rock of Eternal Comfort I shall leave them to meditate upon the terrible sentence of the Lord which shall surely be performed in its season Isa 50.11 Behold all ye that kindle a fire that compass your selves about with sparks walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks that ye have kindled this shall ye have of my hand ye shall lye down in sorrow But saith Mr. G. see how good Hezekiah pleads with the Lord Isa 38.3 Remember me O Lord I beseech thee how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart and have done that which is good in thy sight Hereupon he was not rejected but received a most gracious Answer ver 5. Go say to Hezekiah thus saith the Lord I have heard thy Prayer I have seen thy Tears Behold I will add unto thy days fifteen years Hereunto I shall not Answer with Luther that in this Prayer Hezekiah manifesteth some spice of that temper he was in when he shewed unto the Ambassadors of the King of Babel all his glorious Treasure although the Event and Answer will not shew the contrary The lying of the Midwives of the Israelites in Aegypt had a prosperous Event and a gracious Answer from the Lord who built them houses yet the Act must not therefore be concluded to be approved of the Lord And indeed this Expression is very singular and hardly to be found in the whole Scripture in the mouth of any of the Servants of God Yet I conceive that it ought rather to be taken notice of as agreeable to the Tenure of that Typical and Subservient Covenant under which he was with the rest of the Fathers of the Old Testament until the Death of Christ In which Covenant they had outward Blessings among which length of days was one Deut. 6.2 according to their upright walking with God in the performance of that Covenant The Covenant is at large expressed in the 27 28 29 Chapters of Deuteronomy wherein all outward Blessings even to the prolonging of their days in that good Land of Canaan flowing unto them with all store and abundance of milk and honey and wherein also all outward Curses were threatned against the Transgressors to the rooting of them out quite out of that good Land and also out of the Land of the Living that they should not prolong their days Hezekiah having therefore walked uprightly before the Lord in that Covenant and restored the Right Worship of the Lord he prayed that the Lord would do unto him according to his Promise in that Covenant which manner of Plea seeing grounded upon that peculiar Administration and Covenant proper to that People it ought not to be urged in the Times of the New Testament where that shadowish Administration even of the Moral Law is done away 2 Cor. 3.11 and abolished ver 13. I have a little explained my self in this before yet that if possible things may not be mistaken I shall add a few words more First Although I say that this Covenant did properly relate unto temporal Blessings and Curses onely yet far be it from me to think that the Faithful then had nothing else but temporal Blessings I confess that by the Ancient Promise from the beginning Gen. 3. renewed Gen. 17. They had all spiritual Blessings in Christ for so I before cited it out of the Apostle that they were Heirs and Lords of all so that accordingly they were by Christ freely and fully blessed and justified and saved Yet Secondly I say that according to this subservient Covenant and Administration as the same Apostle saith they differed nothing at all from Servants They were upon doing their Work and have their Wages they were upon neglect of their Task to be punished or thrust out of doors They had great Rewards of Glorious Prosperity upon performance They had sore Afflictions and Calamities upon the neglect thereof Now Thirdly The Question may be How this subservient Covenant could consist with the promise of all blessing in Christ I Answer very well as the Apostle saith observing the right time namely that the child at the same time whilst he is a child may be Lord of all yet in all administrations towards him he may differ nothing at all from a Servant If indeed you take the Heir when he is come to Age and then make him differ nothing from a Servant then it is apparent you destroy his Heirship and alienate the Inheritance from him But whilst he is a Child saith the Apostle he differeth nothing at all from a Servant though at the same time he be Lord of all Even so was the difference between our Fathers before Christ and Us as the Apostle himself applyeth the Comparison But how can this be conceived may some say Could they be Blessed and Accursed at the same time Could they be perfectly Justified and yet Sin charged upon them at the same time This is the main difficulty at which so many stumble I shall therefore desire the Christian Reader to take notice of what is said and I doubt not but the Lord will afford Light for a solution hereof according to the Analogy of Faith contained in the Holy Scriptures I Answer First That the Blessings and the Curses of the Old Testament were of such a nature as they had reference to this subservient Covenant that the greatest Blessings might have a real Curse under it and the greatest Curse might have a real Blessing under it And so their outward Justification might have a real charge of Sin upon them and their outward charging of Sin might veil a Spiritual real and invisible discharge and justification from sin This will be more easily conceived if we remember Two things 1. That this subservient Covenant was carnal It consisted saith the Apostle in carnal Ordinances Heb. 9.10 serving to the purifying of the Flesh ver 13. It consisted in the rudiments of the World as the Apostle saith elsewhere 2. This subservient Covenant was Typical Things hapned unto them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Types 1 Cor. 10. They were shaddows of good things to come but the substance was Christ Heb. 10.1 And shaddows of Heavenly things Heb. 8.5 So then that which in the judgement of the flesh is a Blessing as all the prosperity of the Wicked is may indeed and in truth be a Curse I will Curse their Blessings Mal. 2.2 And also that which is a Curse in the judgment of the flesh being grievous unto it may indeed and in the judgment of Faith be a Blessing and so are all the Afflictions of the Faithful And Secondly A Typical charging of sin will not prove a real charge of sin upon the same subject as upon the scape-goat it did only signifie the real charge of the sin of the Israel of God was to be upon him who was typified by that Scape-goat So